Encyclopedia > User talk:Michael Hardy

Article Content

User talk:Michael Hardy

Welcome to user-land! :-) (bwahahahah!) -- Tarquin 20:27 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Micheal - In re: my comment at Well-ordering, just thought I'd add that if you want a condensed version of "Recent Changes" that only covers mathematical topics you can either go the to List of mathematical topics, and then click on "Related changes" at the left; or you can embed somewhere this link: Math Changes (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Recentchangeslinked&target=List_of_mathematical_topics), which basically does the same thing. Thus, the impetus to add articles to the topic list. Happy editing! Chas zzz brown 03:23 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks.

(Please note that my first name is not "Micheal"; it is "Michael", i.e., I use the usual spelling rather than that strange one.) Michael Hardy 02:06 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)

Micheál is the Irish language version of Michael. JTD

Hi Michael, and welcome to Wikiland. I notice that you occasionally add comments to the article pages. Please use the "Discuss this page" link instead to put a comment on the article's Talk page. We try to keep editorial notes out of articles as much as possible -- if you think an article can't be saved, just remove the text. --Eloquence 20:24 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

Michael, in Talk:Pythagorean theorem, there is this image that show the explanation in Pythagorean theorem that c^2 must be equal to 4*ab/2 + (a-b)^2, hence c^2 = a^2 + b^2. -- looxix 19:35 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

Michael, thank you for updating the Black-Scholes to use TeX. I learnt only this morning that it is possible to use TeX here which was unfortunately after I had made my 'tidying' update to the article. Please bear in mind though that your summary comments bordered on rudeness - though I am fairly thickly-skinned - but others may get put off contributing if they are going to get slapped down for doing so. Not what we want, after you were a newbie contributor once yourself! Pcb21 22:09 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

Hey, no fair, I wanted to blank Hespera[?]! I had a pithy comment all ready. :( -- goatasaur

I beat you the second time, though! -- goatasaur

Like many others, you appear to be a fan of honoring the use-mention distinction with changes in typography and/or punctuation. I assume you think this should be done even in cases where it is obvious whether you are using/mentioning the word. If this assessment is correct, could you provide a justification for this? Perhaps you've found a book or article that makes a particularly compelling case? Does it depend on having centain positions on the meaning of meaning? To be clear, I don't really object to the practice, although I suspect there may be some degree of arbitrariness lurking in the background. --Ryguasu 00:10 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

I'm going to have to think about the question of justification for a while. Michael Hardy 00:51 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Michael, just thought I'd give you a heads-up. I've noticed you have a tendency to use the edit summary field for comments that, it seems to me, would be more appropriately put on the Talk page (or occasionally somewhere else entirely, i.e. that comment on '$' in TeX should go here). See for example Folk mathematics (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Folk_mathematics&action=history), Saving Grace (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Saving_Grace&action=history), redirect page for Mass (liturgy) (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Mass_(liturgy)&action=history),Eastern Christianity (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Eastern_Christianity&action=history), Binary (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Binary&action=history),Associative array (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Associative_array&action=history), and of course Principle of maximum entropy (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Principle_of_maximum_entropy&action=history). This can make it difficult for others to discuss stuff with you. I guess it's the sort of lapse a person wouldn't really notice on their own, so I thought I'd point it out to you. Cyan 01:22 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

I do write stuff on talk pages, but it seems to me one should make clear why one edits as one does, if possible. Michael Hardy 01:26 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

It's simply a question of where one does so — the Talk page, or the summary field (or both... hey why not?). My point is that you occasionally put stuff into the summary field that people might like to discuss for the purpose of improving Wikipedia. If it's on the Talk page, it's that much easier to do so. For example, on the redirect page for Mass (liturgy), you put a comment asking for input. If you had put it on the Talk page, it would have been a point-and-click operation for others to respond. Okay, I'm done making a mountain out of a molehill. Cyan 02:08 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

If I attributed to you the behaviour of someone else, they I unreservedly apologise. At least you and I agree on the importance of grammatical rules, even if we disagree as to their application. I wish everyone else on wiki cared as much. STÓD/ÉÍRE 02:45 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

Hello Michael

I might be wrong, but it seems to me this is a collaborative encyclopedia, so it is not because one create an article that he must add everything to the article that might refer to it. I think your comment was not particularly nice on climax. If you wish to add to the substance of it by indicating what the climax in a book is, please do it, but avoid letting comments indicating that a previous author was wrong in forgetting to do so.

User:anthere (who altogether forgot that a climax also meant an orgasm, as it is not a word she is using very often in english)

Hi. Thanks for fixing the many errors on Constraint-satisfaction problem. More to come, in better style (promise). User:Maxomai 16 Apr. 2003

Thanx for redoing Heir Apparent. I did a very quick write-up then rushed out to the shops. (It is so much fun realising at 10.45 that you are out of milk, the local shop closes at 11pm, you have just started an article and it takes 8 minutes to get to the shop!!!) So it was a very rough draft which I planned to get back to later. ÉÍREman 22:43 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work you do in cleaning up the links and bolding of articles. -- Zoe

I have done a rewrite of Latrocinium to include some factual information from both sides of the argument. Hopefully it produces a fair POV article. ÉÍREman 21:25 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Michael, thanks for your comment on the Gerson diet page. Could you please explain the highlighting convention, or point me there? Also, I'm not sure about the comment re cross referencing. And finally! I'm a relative newcomer, but would endorse the view of the person above who suggested it would be easier if you put comments in the 'discuss this page' area. Hope this doesn't sound ridiculous

Tony

Conventionally, the title word or title phrase is highlighted in the first line of the article. If the article is titled "Green widget" it may begin with "It is believed that green widgets were invented by John Smith." I do not understand what puzzles you about cross-references. If you mention cancer, you can make the word a clickable link. Michael Hardy 00:33 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Michael, I noticed that you often replace displayed equations with TeX. Personally, I prefer to keep equations in HTML if TeX isn't needed (i.e. if they don't have integrals, sums, limits etc.), for the following reasons: TeX images download much slower on slow connections, they are unhelpful for blind users and others dependent on text-mode browsers, they cannot include links, and sometimes they extend beyond the right margin. Cheers, AxelBoldt 15:59 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

Michael, Regarding the Law of Obligations, yes these entries should be capitalized as they are proper names. Thanks for mentioning this. Alex 23:57 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

What was that "refers to" page? Why do we need it? LittleDan

Hi Michael, I've got a question for you at Talk:Scattered disk object. D.D. 19:42 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Michael, is there a reason why you are so rude to newbies? Today is not the first time I've seen it, and it's most unpleasant. If you must be rude to people, how about you take on someone who has been here for a while and knows the ropes? Give the new ones a half a chance before you smack them down, eh? Tannin 16:30 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

What you appear to be referring to is two user pages in which I said "Hello. In your article titled ----- you made the two most frequent newbie mistakes:" and then said what they were. How would you say that more politely? I thought I was helping people learn the conventions; I did not phrase it disrespectfully. Michael Hardy 16:40 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

And I was a little shorter with you than I should have been. Michael, I'd say something like:

Hi (userX). Interesting stuff you contributed to article x[?]. Just a couple of tips for you. Take a look at supervisor mode and you'll see that I changed a couple of things, so that it wasn't a dictionary definition instead of a complete sentence, and adding the Wikipedia highlighting convention[?], according to which the title word or title phrase is highlighted early in the article, usually in the first line. Those aside, it's looking good. Cheers -- Michael.

OK, sometimes it's hard to think of anything positive to say to a raw newbie - as we both know only too well. With the really hopeless cases I just quietly make the change without comment and hope they go away soon. But if there is even a hint of them being a useful contributor one day, it's good to find something positive to say. Ideally, I start with a compliment or a pleasantry and finish with one, hiding the pill inside the honey, if you like. I'm not very good at it. Some of the older hands around here do it really well - guys like KQ or Tim Starling or Tarquin, for example.

Oh - and a tip from an old salesman. You don't need to think up new "honey" all the time. Just recycle it. (I've been selling computers every day for the last ten years with the same old jokes. They still work just fine.) Mav has a paragraph he pastes in word for word exactly the same every time. Doesn't matter - by the time a noob realises it's just a cut and paste job, he's been around for long enough to get the hang of the place and be useful. Best -- Tannin

but NOTHING links to refers to except a couple of talk pages. Anyway, it should be under the Wikipedia: namespace. I'll move it there LittleDan

There has been a long running dispute on capitals for bird species between the people who write the articles, (Tannin, Kingturtle, Steve Nova and me) and the admins, esp Mav, over this. A compromise has been hammered out, which should eventually appear in naming conventions. In essence, the compromise is that specialists can use upper case where they think it is appropriate, but there must be a wiki-style lower case redirect to the article. The dicussion is all over the place, but my talkpage, Tannin's talkpage, and the mailing list should give you the gist of the arguments, which happily seem to have resulted in a compromise acceptable to all concerned jimfbleak 18:35 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. Now that I understand that this is being thought-through thoroughly (poetic effect unintended) by those who maintain those articles, I'll stay away from them. Michael Hardy 18:50 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

What browser are you using? The altar rail page was checked on a number of browsers and all showed it fine. It sounds like you have a browser problem, not a page layout problem. ÉÍREman 22:43 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Netscape --- I don't know which version. Michael Hardy 00:03 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

I find it amazing that the two biggest browsers, Internet Explorer and Netscape are both, well, not to put too fine a point on it, crap. One screws up fonts and cannot deal with elementary caption commands, the other unilaterally mucks up on image boxes (or rather both do this in different ways). Mav and I once had a major row over the layout of a page, until we discovered our respective browsers were 'adapting' commands to create a different layout to the one originally created, with we each seeing a different version of the page to each other (and everyone else). And when one of us 'corrected' the page, the result produced an eyesore for the other browser. When the image was 'corrected' back, what the first browser saw was an unbelievable mess. In fact the real page was fine. At that stage I stopped using both netscape and IE. I found netscape had a habit of ignoring box commands and running text over (or on one case, behind an image.) It was all the doing of the browser. Sometimes I'd leave the page and go back and it would be fine, or worse, or half as bad, or twice as bad. Yet identical commands used on another page never produced the same effect. I don't know if you are on a mac or pc. I'm on a mac and I've begun using Safari, camino or occasionally opera, and they are 100 times better and don't misread pages (though they too have their 'problems'). But from what I could gather from my experience, it was nothing wrong with the page layout at all, but 100% a browser cock-up. And usually when I fixed it all I did was produce a complete mess for all the other browsers, with on plenty of occasions the new layout still producing overruns, underruns, etc when I went back to the page. Brion did produce a different set of commands that seemed to work, by netscape true to form kept occasionally misrepresenting the page layout. I don't know what the solution is, but the problem is simple. Netscape. (It also regularly refuses to put small text in a caption in as small, leading to pictures on netscape taking up more space and interfering with each other through overlaps. Yet every other browser I have come across has no problem with the <small></small> command. If in netscape you 'fix' the apparently badly laid out pictures, the result is an abolute mess for every other browser that gets the real page with the real sized caption. You end up laying out something in a decent browser with the thought in your mind 'now how can netscape or IE fuck this up?' and producing amateurish looking layouts with massive spaces just to be sure, except if it possibly can, either IE or netscape will still find someway to screw it up anyway.) So much for technology. ÉÍREman 01:16 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Michael.

Re Bolding: I do bold the first mention of the article title. Any failures to do so are oversight rather than intention. jimfbleak 05:22 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, saying Coxeter was a geometer is like saying that Pele was a footballer or Beethoven was a composer. They're true statements but it hardly does them justice! -- Ams80

Thanks for taking out the bit about transformations from the standard score article. I don't know why I put it in. Besides the point you mention, I don't know of any example where transformations have been used to allow standardization. User:Jfitzg

Michael — I've been moving © cases that have been sprinkled across pages on intellectual property to link to the newly established List of leading legal cases in copyright law. I noticed you fixed a stub after I started moving it but before I got a chance to finish it. Thank you for your help. I think I pulled that info from fair use where there is now a link to that case. I think that entry on fair use is pretty rough too, but I'm trying to get all the cases on the list before I flesh out the summaries and figure out what cases can be added to the list and then go back to the original pages where these cases are now linked from and correct content and smooth our references. Thanks for your copyediting. Alex756 02:30 17 May 2003 (UTC)

Hi - Thanks for the welcome and pointers; it's been a while and I foolishly let my enthusiasm trump my inclination to FAQ before posting. User:PAW

I just noticed a question from you to User:Mintguy on his talk page regarding the Comic Relief page from way back on April 1. Is the page still inaccessible using your browser? If so, I would like to find out why as I have used that table layout (which Mintguy suggests is the culprit) in a few other pages on the 'pedia. Thanks Pcb21 09:41 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Your recent change from "any recognizes" to "any recognize" does really confuse me. One of sixteen is still one; any of any number remains any; the question is if "any" takes plural or singular in English. :) -- Johan Magnus 00:59 22 May 2003 (UTC)

I did not write "any recognize"; I wrote "16 states that recognize". The sentence is parsed thus: "... any one {of the 16 states that recognize} ... ". Michael Hardy 01:46 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Confusing was the word!
Contemplating your words, I realize that my poor foreigner-brain would have less problem to parse any of the following wordings. (But, honestly, it was your comment which arouse my confusion, not the result of the change.)

A Commonwealth realm is any one, of the 16 sovereign states that recognize Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom as their Queen and head of state.

Commonwealth realms are the 16 sovereign states that recognize Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom as their Queen and head of state.

Commonwealth realms are the 16 sovereign states that recognize the monarch of the United Kingdoms as their head of state.

Now, as I'm no English-speaker, I've no idea if that looks awkward to the natives. In any case, my confusion is resolved. Thank you very much!
-- Johan Magnus 03:08 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Dear Michael -- Thanks for putting in the real meaning of "epiclesis". I suspected it had one, but I had no idea what it was. Deb 16:46 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Hi Michael -- On the page for Euro you replaced "English language EU legislation" with "English EU legislation". Not to be pedantic (okay I will be) but I think the original intent was to use it as an adjective, in which case it should have said: "English-language EU legislation" (with a hyphen). That would be as opposed to "English EU legislation" -- which is EU legislation of or pertaining to England. Anyway, I don't really mind it but I can be pedantic sometimes. It's fun. :-) --Nate 21:49 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Hi Michael,

Good to see such quick engagement with the two new articles I put in! I'm a long-time (unregistered) user and new (registered) contributor, so I'm taking it as encouragement. Thanks!

I have to disagree, however, on your move of Probability generating function to Probability-generating function. I've only ever seen the un-hyphenated form -- in courses I've taken, in text books, on the Internet -- until today (the same goes for moment generating functions). Is the hyphenated phrase an older form now largely replaced by the un-hyphenated version?

Admittedly, the hyphen does make some literal sense to me, but hyphens are being dropped from many words these days (e.g. ice cream). I am in favour of primary titles reflecting current common usage. In this case, the form I am familiar with is probably intended to reflect that it is more important as the generating function of the sequence of probabilities, than as the function that generates probabilities -- hence the importance of Abel's theorem, for example. Alternatively, if there's some discussion of this topic somewhere that I should be aware of, I'd be grateful if you could direct me to it.

--Ben Cairns 00:50 1 June 2003 (UTC)

I should do more research! I see you are also a major contributor to the article on hyphenation! It does appear to be a little non-NPOV (re: the summary of one of the previous versions from the page history), so I'm willing to concede the point. My strength of feeling on this is issue almost certainly less than yours. On the other hand, I might make some minor edits to 'neutralise' the hyphenation article -- it wouldn't take much... :-)

--Ben Cairns 01:10 1 June 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, those "refers to" sometimes drive me nuts too, though I do think there are cases where it can be acceptable. If there is contention about what something is, it may be more appropriate to say that a certain term, in usage, "refers to" this that and the other thing. (See, for instance, God). I suppose even in these instances, they could be rewritten, but then again, there is the suggestion on Wikipedia:Words that should not be used in wikipedia articles that we write articles in E-Prime, without the word "is". I think many cases of "refers to" can be turned into "is", but not always. -- Wapcaplet 01:54 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Refers to is damned annoying and I have tried to avoid it where possible. But there are cases where "is" is simply wrong and "refers to" is correct. Be careful in removing it that you do not change the meaning of an article. Is in some contexts can POV a sentence where refers to leaves it neutral. I totally understand what you are trying to do but sometimes refers to is the most correct term to use and is used deliberately not used for that reason. FearÉIREANN 02:21 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes to the Statistical power and Null hypothesis articles. It had occurred to me lately that the definition of null hypothesis may have left out large categories of null hypotheses, but I hadn't got round to doing anything about it. The problems with the statistical power article were the results of a) (inexcusable) carelessness and b) bad writing. If you're familiar with item response theory, could you perhaps take a look at the paragraph about it in the psychometrics article? Thanks. Jfitzg

Would User:Michael Hardy explain why he chose to delete:

In mathematics, the word tangent has two distinct, but etymologically related meanings: one in geometry, and one in trigonometry.

Pizza Puzzle

Because I was just reverting to Axel Boldt's version, thinking that was the last one that did not include the silliness I complained about. I didn't say that version was perfect; on the contrary, I said explicitly that the article needs work. Michael Hardy 02:24 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yes, but why are you unable to edit the text and remove "silliness"; rather than reverting text which you apparently have no problem with? Pizza Puzzle

Because there are only 24 hours in a day. On less busy days I probably would have done that. Michael Hardy 17:47 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Michael,
I wonder if you would have a look at my comments on the talk:Neutrosophy page. I think we need a mathemetician to tell us if this subset of pages is a recognized mathematical concept or an idiosyncratic one, and to set context in either case. -- Someone else 18:18 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for looking there and your comments. We now have an article at Florentin Smarandache which suggests to me that neutrosophy is part of a new flurry of articles on nonsensical or idiosyncratic concepts that are not being properly contextualized...like pataphysics. These subtle attempts to insinuate nonsense into Wikipedia is something we really have no defense against. -- Someone else 18:48 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I just got round to checking how I had defined Null hypothesis before you revised it, and I don't know what was in my tiny little mind at the time. I recall fixing it, too -- guess I intended to and forgot. So I take back what I have said on my discussion page -- you're right, my definition was bizarre. I'll start taking longer to write the articles. User:Jfitzg

My last word: it may not have been all that bizarre but I still appreciate the comment. Made me think more than if you'd just said "Your definition is incomplete." And now the definition is clearer and more comprehensive than most definitions or descriptions of the null hypothesis you run across.

It is idiotic to say...

Don't forget the WikiNiceness, old chap. -- Oliver P. 21:37 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Please refrain from stating something is idiotic. You are not John Nash, so lose the attitude. Pizza Puzzle

Hi, I was just about to redirect Arezzo, Italy to Arezzo but don´t want to interfere with your ongoing contributions. The pages seem to be about the same town so the articles should be merged. Would you perhaps like to continue your work at the latter article so the former can be redirected? Cheers, Kosebamse 23:38 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Would you ever stop SCREWING UP political science terms by your insane determination to lowercase proper nouns. Droop Quota is the formal name of a formal quota used in electoral politics. As a result when defined it is capitalised. So far you have managed to screw up just about every political science page you have touched. What you are doing is bordering on vandalism. If you don't know what you are doing (and it is patiently obvious when dealing with political science don't have a clue) don't do it. FearÉIREANN 21:21 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've just looked over the Droop Quota article again. Congratulations. You managed to screw up the capitalisation, the definition, the formula and the facts in your illinformed edit. In fact you managed to turn a factually correct article into gibberish. I thought from previous work of yours that your knowledge of political science was weak. Clearly it is non-existent. Michael in his vandalism phases achieves less destruction of an article than you did here. I hope you achieve less wholescale destruction in your other editing than you managed here. Is there a page for [[Worst ever edit]] because if there is, your edit of Droop Quota would win hands down. It is bad enough having to spend so much time cleaning up after Michael, Lir and DW (who having been banned last week is now back as User:ChuckM) without having to clean up after you as well. Please don't edit pages that you don't know anything about. FearÉIREANN 22:41 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

How rude...Pizza Puzzle

Yeah, sheesh. -- Wapcaplet 14:09 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Wow! I can only assume there is some past history between you two here because on the face of it your tirade is completely uncalled for. Consider:

Before MH edited the definition of the article it was ambiguous. Is the quota a) the name of the formula (like the Black-Scholes formula has a name) or is b) the value of that formula having specified 'seats' and 'votes'? a) is a pretty strange choice.. would it not then be the Droop formula/Formula?

The formula was unchanged in meaning before and after MH's edits. The only change was to remove some unnecessary parentheses that complicated the look of the formula. Michael, I suspect, writes in TeX every day btw.

What facts were changed?

The capitalisation with respect to Droop's name was a mistake. The capitalisation with respect to quota/Quota is iffy but still a matter of debate on the talk page.

Maybe there is something of a culture clash between a politican scientist and a mathematician here. The subject matter clearly has some numerical content and the mathematicians will have an instinctive urge to make the article precise to the point of failing to convey /why/ the formula is used. The article reads slightly woollily (e.g. "what's so special about this formula is..") from a mathematical point of view. This may well not be a problem for an article whose audience is not expected to be mathematicians.

Again, I apologize if I am treading on ground without knowing all the history, but I could not read such a vitrolic talk comment without delivering some support for Michael. Pcb21 15:20 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thank you, Pcb21. I suspect that Jtdirl[?] would agree that I clarified some things, but Jtdirl is exceedingly fnd of the use of captital letters in some places where they seem inapproriate to me. Michael Hardy 20:56 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

the capitalisation of Droop Quota is not a matter of debate. It is capitalised, because it is a proper noun, the formal name of the formal specific item.

OK, that is fine. It, at least, had been a matter of discussion as the talk page shows, possibly because the obvious sources to check (i.e. WWW, of which I know you are not a fan for this purpose) use both capitialisations. Pcb21 08:26 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The wording was specific because the formula is specific. The formula, called the Droop Quota, is used to calculate the quota used in when using a form of proportional representation called Proportional Representation using the Single Transferable Vote. (note the use of capitals and lower case, BTW. I didn't decide to capitalise DQ, or PR.STV. Whomever created them did. And proportional representation is in lowercase because it is referring generically to pr, not specificially to a formally named version of pr, known as PR.STV.) Maybe it should be called the Droop formula, but it isn't, just as the White House for most of its life should have been called the Grey House and the Houses of Parliament shouldn't actually be called Houses because it isn't a house but a palace. But it is called Houses of Parliament, the president's residence the White House and the droop formula is called the Droop Quota. I didn't name it. Wiki didn't. It is called the Droop Quota, nothing else. Whether Pcb21 likes it or not is irrelevant. That is its name.

That is also fine. My point wasn't that it might not be the name. My point was that the encyclopedia article was ambiguous (at least the version at the time was). The Droop Quota is the name of the formula. The quota is the value of the formula when seats/votes plugged in. It needn't be ambiguous. The fact that it is a strange name was an aside... names are quirks of history. Pcb21 08:26 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The parentheses may be mathematically unnecessarily but they are always always included as part of the formula, for the very simple reason that the formula is not used by mathematicians but by political science students, many of whom have a habit if by accident the parentheses are left out of screwing up the calculation. The parentheses are there to ensure no mistakes are there and there know in which order which part of the formula is calculated.

In the UK the ability to do a simple sum like this is taught at Key Stage 2 - that's 7-10 year olds. It is probably taught at an earlier age around the world. By whom are the brackets ' always always ' included? Whoever it is, I really don't think we should be following their lead. If someone can't do that sum then all the parentheses in the world are unlikely to help. I stand by my point that Michael improved the clarity of the article by removing the brackets. The example you included in the article is surely enough to help guide people through the use of the formula. Pcb21 08:26 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Michael is a very competent contributor but he has screwed up a host of pages before by making changes before he checked. I don't edit pages I don't know background facts about. I leave notes on talk pages saying 'why is such and such called this? Why is this this way?' Other editors do the same.

I also do that in many cases. What is your evidence for the claim you make below that I have driven anyone away or angered anyone besides you? Who are those persons? When have I ever wondered why anyone "goes into a rage" as a result of anything I've done on Wikipedia? I think these are figments of your imaginiation. Michael Hardy 19:47 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Michael doesn't and his actions have already driven one contributor away and pissed off others. All he has to do is leave a note on a talk page asking 'why is this written like this?' No-one owns pages here. We all are trying to work together. But other users show people sufficient respect to presume they have some background knowledge more than they have and that if they wrote something in a particular reason they may be a specific reason why they did that. So they ask why. Even Zoe, who could occasionally be tactless, left questions on pages. But Michael just bulldozes ahead regardless. And then he wonders why users go into a rage when he mucks up a page, when all he had to do was ask why and talk to someone first if he thought there was a problem with a page. FearÉIREANN 01:11 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps you have not seen the Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages page. Why is it so offensive to you if someone makes a bold (though possibly incorrect) edit to something? If it's wholly incorrect, you can always revert, and leave a polite message for the person on their talk page inviting discussion. No need to attack their character over it. -- Wapcaplet 01:30 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's FearÉIREANN's usual style to recast disagreements with him as "bordering on vandalism" and to tell the people daring to contradict him that their knowledge is "non-existent". The downcasing of political terms is recommended by the Chicago MoS which is the basis of our style rules, and yet he seems blissfully unaware of what Chicago says. Wikipedia is not really for people like him; it simply cannot be as tightly controlled as he seems to want. I suspect he would be much happier with Nupedia, and I've suggested as much, although he doesn't seem to have taken the hint yet. Stan 03:10 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

And following the Chicago MoS to the letter isn't making Wikipedia "tightly controled"? --mav

It would be, if people actually did that. :-) For me, it's a starting point and a useful source of agreed-upon authoritative advice; departures should be deliberated and discussed as usual. The manual itself has a hundred caveats and qualifications to its own recommendations, which means that it's logically impossible to always follow Chicago to the letter. :-) Stan 21:24 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The claim that Michael is too bold in updating pages has been made. I am sure he will bear this in mind as he edits. The claim that you are quick to claim aggressively that you know what you are doing and no-one else does has also been made. Hopefully this little altercation will have the effect that two basically bloody good contributors to Wikipedia will become even better. Pcb21 08:26 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

Search Encyclopedia

Search over one million articles, find something about almost anything!