This user is one of the 40 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

• User talk:Michael Hardy/Archive1
• User talk:Michael Hardy/Archive2
• User talk:Michael Hardy/Archive3
• User talk:Michael Hardy/Archive4
• User talk:Michael Hardy/Archive5
• User talk:Michael Hardy/Archive6
• User talk:Michael Hardy/Archive7

Where would you recommend I look to publishing the results of this work?

I appreciate the distinction between referencing peer reviewed content, and being peer reviewed content.

Is there a reason why the wikipedia engine hasn't been cloned to facilitate the publishing of original material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjnicholls44 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't thought about a wiki for original research. There are various journals of number theory and there are journals that accept papers in many areas of mathematics, including number theory. But if you want to put it on a web site without going through a full refereeing process, you could try this one. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Google Australia. Since you had some involvement with the Google Australia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 06:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael, nearly 10 years since you taught me that Wikipedia was case sensitive! Thanks for your typography on Cayley's sextic. There is no need to to change "date" to "year" in citations, unless harvnb is being used, and probably not even then. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 17:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Michael, do you know if MO or MO Meta have any kind of private message system, or a way for logged in contributors to contact other contributors by email? I don't an account there so I can't access all of its features, so I can't tell if something like that exists without enrolling. Of course in many cases it's possible to locate the person's contact info with web searches, but not always. Thanks. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was no such system last time I checked. That was a couple of years ago. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sheppard's correction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Estimation (statistics) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:Chords.svg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Michael, I saw your removal on time series in the article of statistical population. You're right that time series will mostly concern sample data. But there may be exceptions too. For example, take the time series of the number of soldiers in the Roman Empire by January 1st of every year, up to its fall in the year 476. That's definitely population data. (Just for info, this time series text is not original text of myself, it's something that I moved away from the article on Statistics (too much detail there) to the Statistical population article. But at least I can defend the possibility of the text.) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a comment in your article/discussion on 'moment'. Please consider my request to elaborate the historical perspective on the issue. Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Michael, it seems to me that in Granger causality, the subsections after Granger causality#Reconstructing a sample network are merely describing the detailed experimental procedure of one of the papers. Should I delete it? I hesitate, mainly because it is a big chuck of text (unsourced though). (I have found you because of your edits on anohter article.) gratefully, Taha (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be moving the AfD page or the nominated page while it's being discussed; it causes various problems, such as the bot thinking it's not been added to the logs and re-added. If you think it's a notable topic under another title then propose that in the discussion. Or wait until after the AfD is closed to move it or propose a move if it's controversial.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael,

A while back (a year or two?) you spearheaded an attempt to write a promotional essay aimed at getting mathematicians interested in editing on Wikipedia. I know that the effort didn't get very far but I do remember that there were some suggestions for what should be in the essay. I was wondering if you could point me to that material as I have been asked to write such an article for an MAA publication and would like to include any of the ideas that were brought up at the time. Thanks. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can find it. For some reason I didn't like the direction it took. I had thought of writing such a thing myself and my version would have been different from what was being suggested. Who asked you to write the article? AMS Notices? The Monthly? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ivars Peterson (current publication director of the MAA) asked me to submit an article. No specific MAA magazine was mentioned, but there are several that would be appropriate. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Monthly article draft: Wikipedia for mathematicians Michael Hardy (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, thank you for your edit of "ell" in Zhao Youqin's p algorithm which makes a formular much more readable than "l", which looks like "one" --Gisling (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Constructability, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constructibility (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course people are confused by the intuitive "explanation". That is why it should be rewritten, by someone who actually knows what a vector space is in mathematics, and is not still rooted in some crude notion of position vectors as taught by bad high school teachers (since those are the only kind of vector for which one would usually talk of an "origin" RQG (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I am a mathematician and I know what a vector space is. John Baez is a mathematical physicist who is highly respected by mathematicians as an expository writer on abstruse concepts and quite prolific in his writing on such things. In this blog posting you see him saying

"An affine space is like a vector space that has forgotten its origin."

I don't think that your understanding of the matter is superior to mine or to his. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In mathematics, appeals to authority are merely a sign of lack of understanding, especially when the authority is known for glib remarks lacking in substance. I will agree that Baez is a better mathematician than you. I understand you are a statistician with a minor in maths at a university of no particular note, and that you think is as good as a first in mathematics from Cambridge. At least Boris Tsirelson understands that A cannot be a vector space without defining more structure, so do not make claims which you have already demonstrated false. RQG (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not raise the issue of academic degrees. And you are becoming rude and writing imbecilic nonsense. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RQG, I have explained at talk:affine space what I suspect is your principal misunderstanding of the mathematics involved. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for rudeness, but I think your assessment of my level of ability was also rude. I have responded to your comment on my talk space. John did point out that his description should immediately be made precise, which is certainly true and which is a major reason I have been advocating revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RQG (talk • contribs) 06:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am helping to encourage editors to improve articles to which they have edited or created recently. In regard to the article: Interior reconstruction, the following assessment has been placed on the page:

Feel free to remove this post from this talk page if you would like. Since you have shown an interest in this article's improvement I thought you might like to have this information.

Regards,

bpage (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. An IP editor (71.82.112.140) has been adding a lot of wrong wikilinks to articles related to mathematics and physics during the past few days. They clearly have no idea what they are doing and they keep doing so despite all the talk-page warnings by other editors. I think this is a highly actionable case. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you think that Amelia Bedelia (book) might have been a hoax? The linked article clearly mentions an addition to the article Amelia Bedelia, not the book.--Auric talk 19:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out my capitalization error, I will be more careful in the future. However, the link you redirected quantum master equation to is quite inappropriate. That article provides the quantum master equation FOR "an even degree element W of a Batalin–Vilkovisky algebra" ... it's not the article on "quantum master equations". In fact, The Batalin-Vilkovisky is a bizarre area for the application of a quantum master equation: a highly esoteric subject that only briefly overlaps with the use of quantum master equations in theory, while quantum master equations are more typically used in the study of open quantum systems. Until a real article is made for quantum master equation a more appropriate link would be to http://www.quantiki.org/wiki/Master_equation or to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_quantum_system .. but really the only place it should truly be redirected is to an article dedicated to the subject itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Universe (talk • contribs) 11:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're quite wrong. I redirected Quantum Master Equation (with capital initial letters) to quantum master equation (with lower-case initial letters). I never redirected anything to Batalin–Vilkovisky algebra. Someone else redirected quantum master equation (with lower-case letters) to that page. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael. I recently had to do a PCA, and found it hard to gain intuition into the process from the wikipedia page, or from other online sources. I added an Intuition section to the principal component analysis page, and would appreciate if you could look it over. It's not very good, as I don't really understand PCA that well, but I thought starting an Intution section would be helpful to laymen.Potnisanish (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found you long time, now I see you at here. How are you? You remmember me? [You already help me at here]

I wrote Dao's theorem based on some articles, these are notable theorem and generalization of some famous theorem. I posted them since 28 to now(20 days) but not keep and not delete. Please help me read detail and give your comment keep or delete. Please see Dao's theorem. Thank to You very much.--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't change the file names -because the pictures broke. Hafspajen (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to add some context here. I have no idea at all what you're talking about. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, you changed the punctuation in the Gallery in this article, (and probably in others too) , see Modigliani. You can't change the punctuation on an image file name. If you do, you broke the image. See how the gallery looks here in the article.

Now that was reverted by some alert user, here - but think about the galleries, promise? Cheeers, and happy editing. Hafspajen (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cantor's first uncountability proof you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carabinieri -- Carabinieri (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits on this page. I have actually created a article out of this draft and I am not able to figure out how to delete this page. The pages are Draft:3D_printer_extruder and 3D_Printer_Extruder. Please look into this and suggest what should I do.

Priybrat (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michael Hardy. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qing Jin (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Hi, Michael: Thank you for your comment on the global Cascading Model, you said I should give some new links to the article, here are some links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociological_theory_of_diffusion in this page, it mentioned a little bit about the model, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_contagion is highly relevant with the topic. So What I should do with that ?[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Notation.pdf requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip (e.g. a Word document or PDF file) that has no encyclopedic use.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Reticulated Spline ^{(t • c)} 23:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you move The Man Who Sold the World (song) to The Man Who Sold the World? Because the title track rather than the album of the same name. 183.171.182.22 (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cantor's first uncountability proof you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Cantor's first uncountability proof for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Spinningspark -- Spinningspark (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit summary at Georg Cantor, you said "I do not think his first proof is more complex or less elegant than the original. I think the original is more elegant." I think the 2nd sentence contradicts the first one. In my opinion, the 1891 proof is easier to understand than the 1874 proof. Did you mean that, too? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant I don't think the 1874 proof is more complex or less elegant than the 1891 proof. Nor do I think it's harder to understand; I think if you're finding it hard to understand, then maybe a clearer explanation should be written. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while neither is terribly difficult, the 1891 proof is certainly shorter. In that sense it's easier to understand.

The great merit of the 1874 proof is that it gives better insight into the behavior of the reals specifically. Descriptive set theorists are likely to like it better, because it's a baby example of the things they do. That's my background, and I like the 1874 proof better. But if a combinatorial set theorist liked the 1891 proof better, I'd have to reluctantly understand. --Trovatore (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok..... Michael Hardy (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your restoration of the list of initial-stress-derived nouns. There is a way to handle this on Wiktionary: to create a category under wikt:Category:English terms by etymology. I'm not doing it myself at the moment — too laborious — but there's an idea. — Eru·tuon 05:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Or an article could be added here on Wikipedia and linked from Lists of etymologies. — Eru·tuon 05:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do these words actually share a common etymology not shared by other words? Even if they do, that's not the essence of the matter. This is about a relationship between pronunciation and the meaning of the word, not about etymology. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology is not only concerned with what original word something is derived from, but also what sound changes it has gone through in its derivation from that word. In this case, initial-stress-derived nouns are derived from a verb by a process of stress movement (or at least appear that way as we see them today), so they form an etymological category not by the word they come from, but by the process that formed them. (Check out the Wiktionary link above: there are several subcategories concerned with sound changes: apheresis, apocope, syncope.) — Eru·tuon 19:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of sheer curiosity, why did you title the message on my talk page "malware"? That seems a bit odd for a wikicoding mistake I made almost two years ago. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 09:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because what you did had very bad effects: It made everything that was posted below your posting invisible. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I left this on my TALK page.

You are absolutely correct, Michael. I intended to get rid of that reference, but somehow restored it. I had written essentially the same thing as you in the TALK section of the article as follows: Admittance to the Union[edit]

Reverted edit. California was admitted to the Union 11 years before the Civil War. Activist (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Added unmentioned presence of Russian coastal colony north of San Francisco Bay, eventually purchased by Sutter. Activist (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Whoever originally put that in there may have also been the one who claimed that there was little European interest in Northern California, so I added the part about the Russian colonies, which also prompted me to clean up the insufficient info on Ft. Ross, Tomales Bay, etc. In fact, until trying to clean that up, I had no idea that Sutter bought out the Russian colony and that his influence was substantially wider than commonly portrayed. The problem seems to be that a great deal of info in the Sacramento article was clumsily written (probably by an editor whose first language was not English) or inaccurate, so I made an attempt to clean up the lead paragraphs, but didn't have the time to go through it all. I noted that it needs considerable work. Thank you for straightening out my inadvertent error. Activist (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Activist (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You recently moved Models and Methods of Quantitative Economics - QEM while it is up for deletion. Please see the notes at WP:EDITATAFD re moving a page while it is under discussion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, had not really heard the term before but I definitely know a few places to look. Thanks for the nudge. Jessamyn (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hardy, I was wondering whether you were still interested in pursuing this nomination. You last edited the article on December 19, and posted to the review page on December 24, over a month ago. Please stop by the review at your first opportunity. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'll be back to do further edits, but other things in my life have been occupying my attention, so I may work at a leisurely pace. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cantor's first uncountability proof you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Cantor's first uncountability proof for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Spinningspark -- Spinningspark (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael Hardy. I am Piotr Konieczny (User:Piotrus), you may know me as an active content creator (see my userpage), but I am also a professional researcher of Wikipedia. Recently I published a paper (downloadable here) on reasons editors participated in Wikipedia's biggest vote to date (January 2012 WP:SOPA). I am now developing a supplementary paper, which analyzes why many editors did not take part in that vote. Which is where you come in :) You are a highly active Wikipedian (75th to be exact), and you were active back during the January 2012 discussion/voting for the SOPA, yet you did not chose to participate in said vote. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why was that so? For your convenience, I prepared a short survey at meta, which should not take more than a minute of your time. I would dearly appreciate you taking this minute; not only as a Wikipedia researcher but as a fellow content creator and concerned member of the community (I believe your answers may help us eventually improve our policies and thus, the project's governance). PS. If you chose to reply here (on your userpage), please WP:ECHO me. Thank you! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You said you are annoyed by my articles. Sorry. I do not write TeX by hand. I convert it from TeXmacs/pandoc. Writing TeX by hand would be a huge mess. Apparently, the conversion does not output TeX up to the standards of wikipedia. I will not be fiddling with TeX by hand simply because that is a waste of time. Therefore, I will stop writing anymore articles. If my 2 or 3 articles are too much trouble for any editors to fix to wikipedia standards, then they can be deleted. Good luck. Twy2008 (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could also point out that your replacement of \mathrm{sin} with \sin has effectively vandalized the "Quaternion rotation biradial" article. At least one of the replacements didn't format correctly at Identities:_Product_ba_and_rotation_operator_R. Btw, not every function in mathematics has a specific LaTeX command like \sin, so in general, a function probably has to be written just the way I did it. I'm not sure it is my role anymore to try to fix this vandalism, or argue this any further. Twy2008 (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say I was annoyed by your articles. I was annoyed by TeX code that was far more complicated than necessary. I have good news on one point: You could probably learn what you need to know of "TeX" for these articles in fifteen minutes. To call in "TeX" is quite exaggerated; it is only a system of coding mathematical notation nearly identical to what TeX uses. There's no need to actually learn TeX in order to use it. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I noticed that you redirected Smooth minimum to itself, creating a redirect loop. I changed it to Smooth maximum because that seemed to be your intention, but I just wanted to check that that page is the intended destination. spiderjerky (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Celebrity deaths. Since you had some involvement with the Celebrity deaths redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Serpentine shape, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serpentine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael, I've noticed that you just decapitalized "witch" in Witch of Agnesi in all instances. I thought that as a proper name of a specific curve it should be capitalized. I have seen some examples in the literature where witch was not capitalized, but the majority in my experience have capitalized it. Why did you think it shouldn't be capitalized. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia generally tends to be fairly sparing in its use of capitals. Actually I think in this case a capital might not be unreasonable because "witch" in this instance is not a common noun; one does not speak of various sorts of generic "witches", of which is is just one. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just created a new article on implicit curves which is essentially a translation of the German WIKI (implizite Kurve) I created some weeks ago. Please could You or some one else check the language. It may not meet the WIKI-standard. Thank You !--Ag2gaeh (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I don't see why you deleted one of the examples in the page Proof by contradiction. There wasn't really anything wrong with that example (summary: if there is a largest prime p, take any prime factor of p! + 1, that will be larger, contradiction, so there isn't a largest prime p). MvH (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)MvH[reply]

I deleted that because it is a very very bad example. I explain why here. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael - I notice that you have been working on several of the individual sporadic simple group articles. I saw your change to Thompson sporadic group with the comment, "In group theory obviously does not tell non-mathematicians that mathematics is what this is about" and applied your same fix to the other 25 sporadic group articles (plus a few more with the same defect). Thanks. Since you may be interested, I invite you to look at User:Foobarnix/Revision and cleanups to individual sporadic group articles. We can talk more on that page if you like. --Foobarnix (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael,

Recently there has been drive-by vandalism by IPs at a number of pages including Galileo Galilei, The Assayer, and Method of indivisibles. Could you "protect" the latter page so only autoconfirmed users can edit it? Tkuvho (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC) As I was writing the previous message, the same IP blanked The Assayer. I would much appreciate if you could "protect" that one, as well. Tkuvho (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you made [this change] on the modulo page. It appears to now be producing an parse error, something like "Failed to parse (PNG conversion failed; check for correct installation of latex and dvipng)". Just thought you might want to know. - Cygnosis (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael,

Sorry that I couldn't participate in the GA Review for Cantor's first uncountability proof. I didn't have the time then. Looking over what was said, I agree with SpinningSpark that the article needs a fundamental restructuring. I now have the time to work on a rewrite. I've already written a new lead (see User:RJGray/Cantor draft1) that handles SpinningSpark's point about whether the disagreement about Cantor's proof is a decades long dispute. I plan to work through SpinningSpark's excellent feedback. I really appreciate the time and thought he put into it. I also appreciate JohnBlackburn's feedback.

The new lead is also a "real lead": it leads into what is covered in the Wikipedia article including Cantor's development of his ideas (which SpinningSpark pointed out was not in the old lead). You may notice that I'm switching the order of the sections now titled "The development of Cantor's ideas" and "The disagreement about Cantor's proof." Doing this not only makes the lead flow better but also helps me handle some of feedback.

So I'm prepared to do a rewrite, but I need to know if anyone else is working on one, and whether the new lead is going in the right direction. I should warn you that my rewrite will take a bit of time. I believe that we can create an article that will attain Good Article status, but for me, good writing takes time and feedback. I'll need some feedback after I finish each section. By the way, I'm curious: do many people read the article as compared to other math or math history articles (the article is really a mix of the two), or is it not read much, or is there no way to know this?

Thanks again for nominating the article for Good Article, thanks for the edits you made to make it a better article, and thanks for attempting to bring it up to GA standards. Unfortunately, the writing I did in the article was not close enough to GA standards for you to succeed without a major rewrite. I'm sorry that my writing wasn't closer to GA standards, but I'm not surprised since it was my first contribution to Wikipedia and I didn't know the rules. RJGray (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this page. It reports that as of through the 10th of August, the article has been viewd 439 times during August. It was viewed 1208 times in July. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael,

I've just completed a draft of the first three sections of my rewrite (see User:RJGray/Cantor draft1). They were fairly straightforward sections to write; I know the next two will be harder. I've kept all the math in the first two sections (the current article mixes math with the discussion about the nature of the proof). This along with the math I added tries to address the complaint about not that much math in a math article. Now the readers who just want to read math only have to read the first two (or three) sections; the third section is a bridging section. Of course, the article as a whole contains both math and math history, but now it's more cleanly separated. Also, I've taken the two proofs out of the footnotes, used the "math proof" template, and motivated and rewrote the proof about intervals excluding leading terms (in fact, this proof motivated me to simplify Cantor's proof).

I've simplified Cantor's proof by using open intervals, which also simplifies the case diagrams, the proof about excluding leading terms, etc. There will be 3 diagrams, one for each case in the construction. However, the case diagrams are not done yet. I only recently contacted someone who is doing them for the article. The case 1 diagram should handle SpinningSpark's observation about someone getting confused because it deals with a finite interval. Geometrically, it's obvious that in case 1, c is different from x_n. I look forward to your comments.

On another subject: Euclid's proof that there are infinitely many primes. I remember that after you sent me the excellent article that you and Catherine Woodgold wrote, I traced the proof-by-contradiction back to Dirichlet. While reading up on the history of non-constructive proofs, I came across the following that states that Dirichlet was the first to use non-constructive existence proofs and that he used them in his number theory investigations: History and Philosophy of Modern Mathematics, vol. 11, p. 249. Here's footnote 27, which references Klein's book: History and Philosophy of Modern Mathematics, vol. 11, p. 257. Also, you may want to look at the proof in Wikibooks: Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes. It states "Euclid's proof works by contradiction."

By the way, do you know why Wikipedia removed the MathJax option from the Appearance tab in Preferences? Also, MathML is giving me blanks (when printing) now. It was working for me about a week ago but it doesn't anymore. At least, PNG still works. Thanks, RJGray (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed those changes. Maybe one of the regulars at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics would know about this. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael, I've updated User:RJGray/Cantor draft1. Here's the major changes: Added section "The disagreement about Cantor's proof"; added Jochen Burghardt's case diagrams; separated notes and references. The case diagrams are in the section "The Proofs". Please send me any suggestions or corrections to the article (or you can make your changes directly on the draft). Thanks, RJGray (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael, I have now finished my first version of my first draft: it's in User:RJGray/Cantor draft1. I'm still actively working on it. I'm improving some of the writing. I've recently shortened my original "Dedekind's contribution" section and I'm looking for other places to shorten. I also need to check my links and do some miscellaneous tasks. I suspect it will take me about a month; I'd like to get it done by the end of the year. Any feedback would be appreciated. By the way, I'll be away from computers for about a week. RJGray (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'll look at the draft. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael, I've now finished my second draft: it's in User:RJGray/Cantor draft2. Did quite a bit of editing throughout. The biggest changes are: I redid parts of two proofs in "The Proofs" section (the proof of Cantor's second theorem and the dense sequence proof), and I added a short legacy section. I added this section for at least two reasons: ending with Dedekind's contributions leaves one with a negative feeling about Cantor—the legacy section ends more positively by telling how Cantor's contributions affected mathematics. Also, it points out the dual legacy of the article: the concept of countability and the uncountability theorem. The last paragraph combines the two with Skolem's insight into the uncountability theorem.

This second draft should be very close to the final draft. I made a few small changes today and probably will do some more small changes here and there. Also, I have some miscellaneous tasks to do (like making a final check of all my references). It should take a few more weeks; I'd still like to get it done by the end of the year.

By the way, is the plan to just post the article or let some editor make comments beforehand? Thanks, RJGray (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael, Just want to clarify my last sentence about "some editor": I know that you are an editor, and your comments are always welcome. I was wondering about one of the editors involved in the GA Review. Thanks, RJGray (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to move the California Legislature Session pages that have an en dash in them to not have one. I could not imagine why anyone would think this is correct? :-) Can you explain why "2015-16" should have an en dash? Separate from mathematics (which I am not sure of) does anyone suggest that titles should have en dashes in them? It makes it hard for tools, such as one I am writing, to deal with the URLs.

Ok. It turns out that I am wrong about this. I checked the MOS.

But. It says that for any page which uses this in its title, there should be a re-direct for the page with a hyphen. See MOS:DASH. Do you have any suggestion for how this can be handled. Since you did the re-naming to change the titles to use an en dash, can you create the re-direct pages? It would be appreciated.

RayKiddy (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard that ranges of years and ranges of pages use en-dashes (not em-dashes). Thus an article's initial sentence says:

Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, DL, FRS, RA (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965) was a British statesman who was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1940 to 1945 and again from 1951 to 1955.

The date of birth and date of death are separated by an en-dash. If it had given onlly the years, it would have said Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, DL, FRS, RA (1874–1965), with no blank space before and after the en-dash. Similarly, ranges of pages use en-dashes, thus: The Gathering Storm pp. 170–71. If a hyphen rather than an en-dash had appeared there, I would have changed it to an en-dash with an edit summary saying I'm correcting a punctuation error. It's used in things like this: "Butterfly fossils date to the mid Eocene epoch, 40–50 million years ago." Note the en-dash in "40–50". It is also used in physical measurements, e.g. 2.5–3 kg, and with letters of the alphabet, e.g. A–F.

If I'm not mistaken, all this is codified in WP:MOS. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is not with en dashes in general. I was just finding it inconvenient that the en dash appeared in the title. It makes dealing with the URL for the article more complicated. And I do think that, even if it is correct to use an en dash in the title, there needs to be a re-direct page so that people searching for "2015 *hyphen* 16" find a page even if its title contains "2015 *en dash 16". But I can create these re-directs. Sorry if my comments seemed grumpy and thanks for the reply. Cheers. RayKiddy (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised to hear there was no such redirect. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Instrumental variable page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Vereinigtes Königreich. Since you had some involvement with the Vereinigtes Königreich redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GZWDer (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Slavery in Vermont, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://slavenorth.com/vermont.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Slavery in Vermont, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King Charles II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather surprised that an administrator should think it appropriate to ask for legal advice on a Wikipedia reference desk. Since it isn't, and since the header at the top of each desk makes this entirely clear, I have removed your post. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Michael,

Your mathematical contributions over the years are appreciated. However, you persist with replacing valid low-complexity TeX math markup with ad hoc presentation markup such as bold and italic sequences. Could you please reconsider this? In modern browsers math markup is rendered well via a choice of MathML, CSS or images, whereas ad hoc markup seldom matches the surrounding text well – if you want to see more starkly what I mean, then try increasing the font size or specifying another typeface, as many people with impaired vision have to do. Moreover, screen readers need to parse the complex sequence of ad hoc markup, instead of simply using the contents of the math tag as-is. The sole blind student I have taught certainly preferred the raw TeX of "markup-math x^n + y^n = z^n markup-math-end" to having to follow sequences like "bold-x-unbold superscript-n-close-superscript plus bold-y-unbold superscript-n-close-superscript = bold-z-unbold superscript-n-close-superscript". If you have a cogent reason why ad hoc markup is still to be preferred in 2015, then please share it: I remain open to being convinced, but currently I have no choice but to frown upon your wide-ranging replacements of semantically meaningful math markup with ad hoc presentation markup. Ott2 (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add references.-- Action Hero Shoot! 14:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Combination tone article you edited, which includes a section on Resultant tones include information about the use of resultant tones in heavy metal music power chords? For talk page discussion, see here.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 02:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you find time for it, please take a look at the article about Gustav Laabs. Any help is appreciated and I will of course add you to the DYK nom for the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hugh Lowell Montgomery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hugh Montgomery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a frequent contributor to Wikipedia in the area of mathematics, I kindly request you to examine, and perhaps, to contribute to the discussion regarding the notability of the article on Program for Research In Mathematics, Engineering and Science (PRIMES). It has been marked for deletion, and your opinion is welcomed. Dodecahedronic (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 14th state. Since you had some involvement with the 14th state redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minneapolis Institute of Art edit-a-thon

Date: Saturday, October 24, 2015, 12pm–4pm Location: Minneapolis Institute of Art Friends Community Room, 2400 Third Avenue South, Minneapolis Sponsor: Minneapolis Institute of Art You are invited to attend an Art+Feminism edit-a-thon at Minneapolis Institute of Art which will be held on Saturday, October 24, 2015. This editing event is dedicated to improving and increasing the presence of cultural, historic, and artistic information on Wikipedia pertaining to women artists. For more information and to RSVP: ? click here ?, you may register online for the event or call (612) 870-6323 --gobonobo + c 21:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lars-Erik Persson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inequality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey for some reason I just felt like I could drop back by in a few years and you'd be still plugging along. You have invested so much work. I wanted to say that I was a direct beneficiary of some high level math theory discussion a few years back we had and that I was greatly impacted by the ability to interact with sharp minds like yourself here on Wikipedia where there's all types of users with all types of knowledge. For that I'm grateful and it was specifically about physics and a weird relationship between one equation and a number-theory relationship which nobody had yet pieced the two together.

When my exploratory question lead you to arrive at the same conclusion I was on the verge of making myself, it completely transformed me as a math hobbyist and into a math addict, haha. Well, just wanted to share your random impact on my life a few years ago which has led me to a lifelong hobbyist involvement in math and physics where I have an incurable obsession of ascribing causality to the parameters of various math equations which govern the laws of our physical universe. Cheers! 72.196.99.114 (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Michael Hardy (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go Hokies (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Henry Priestley (mathematician) page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saluton, mi ankau estas esperantisto, kiel vi fartas? --Binaryhazard (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bone, sed cxi tie mi ne multe skribas en Esperanto. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael,

I have restored some old contents on the cis() function you contributed to the List of trigonometric identities back in 2003 and 2006. I stumbled upon cis(x) being mentioned in several related articles but I never found a "central" discussion of its usage from the viewpoint of the function itself, therefore I felt we need a separate article on it: cis (mathematics), as was suggested in one of the past discussions. The article is still unsourced and it needs some copy-editing for a better logical flow and to remove some redundancy. Since you were the original contributor I thought I'd let you know. It would be great if you could help out with some references etc. Thanks and greetings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you make of this? Slawomir
Bialy 20:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

)He tuned it up the next day with 12 consecutive edits.) -A876 (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Mediation (statistics) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of numbers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fraction (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Loft Literary Center edit-a-thon

Date: Thursday, February 11, 2016, 6–8pm Location: Loft Literary Center, 1011 S Washington Ave, Room 203, Minneapolis Sponsor: The Loft Literary Center Hello Michael Hardy! You are invited to attend an edit-a-thon at the Loft Literary Center which will be held on Thursday, February 11, 2016. This editing event is dedicated to improving and increasing the presence of cultural, historic, and artistic information on Wikipedia pertaining to artists from marginalized communities. Please bring a laptop. Refreshments will be provided. For more information and to RSVP: ? click here ?

We have also recently formed a user group for Minnesota editors. If you would like to join, please add your name to our page on meta. Thank you, gobonobo ^{+ c} 23:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael,

I've finished my final draft of the article, it's located at User:RJGray/Cantor draft3. It took me longer than expected partly because I keep seeing ways to improve my writing, and partly because I realized that the article had a big flaw: Namely, the article's title was "Cantor's first uncountability proof," but the last four sections had little or nothing to do with the proof. The last three section titles—"The influence of Weierstrass and Kronecker on Cantor's article," "Dedekind's contributions to Cantor's article," "The legacy of Cantor's article"—led me to realize that I've written a fairly comprehensive article about Cantor's article. I also realized that the editors that participate in the Good Article review may also think that the old name doesn't reflect the contents of the new article.

So I've changed its name to "Cantor's first set theory article" and rewrote the lead. Cantor's article is a well-known, often-cited, and much-discussed article so I think it deserves a Wikipedia article. I realize the change of title requires a redirect from the old title. I boldfaced the old article title Cantor's first uncountability proof in the first paragraph of the lead so that redirected readers will know they're at the right place.

The article is ready to post as soon as you are comfortable posting it. Please send me any recommendations you have for improving it. I just have one request about posting. Please tell me when you are going to post it. I have written a Thank You for the people who have helped me with the article. I would like to post it to the article's Talk page soon after you post the article.

Thank you for your patience in waiting for my rewrite. --RJGray (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for posting the article. However, the name should start with "Cantor's" like the old article. When I do searches for Cantor articles, I start typing in "Cantor" and not "Georg". I only put "Georg Cantor" because I was copying "Cantor's first uncountability proof" which starts that way. I'm willing to remove the "Georg" because I think it's more important that the title start with "Cantor's". Thanks, --RJGray (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Currently Cantor's first set theory article is a redirect page targetting Georg Cantor's first set theory article. If you either (1) enter "Cantor's first set theory article" in the search box or (2) link to "Cantor's first set theory article" from another article, you will be directed to Georg Cantor's first set theory article. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael,

Thank you very much for posting "Georg Cantor's first set theory article" and putting the redirects in. It's nice to see my work posted and know that some people are already reading it.

I have some concern about the suggested move to the title "On a Property of the Collection of All Real Algebraic Numbers." Currently, there are only two of us arguing back and forth. Perhaps you may be interested in participating in this discussion. Thanks, RJGray (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Algebriac structure, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo, or other unlikely search term.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect contains an error. Xx236 (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xx236: What is the "error" to which you refer? The typo in the page title? That was intended, for obvious reasons. If it is something else, then what? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MH created that redirect page with incorrect format. (Xx236 should have fixed that error (in addition to tagging the page), much preferable over pointing it out.) I cannot determine whether the original incorrect redirect worked properly as a redirect, or just displayed a link. (I will not re-create the error there or elsewhere. I tried at WP Sandbox, but it apparently cannot simulate a redirect page.) MH contested the delete request (on the talk page). The next editor corrected the redirect error and re-tagged the page, as it remains today.

On redirect pages generally: A while ago, someone (possibly I) stupidly created a redirect article for one misspelled link in just one article. So I fixed the article and then tagged the orphan redirect page for deletion, for 3 damn-good reasons: The misspelling was unique; even Google could not find an instance; and the page should never have been created. None of that mattered! The cabal that day COULD NOT delete it! They were offended that I would even suggest it! If MH tomorrow begs "them" to delete the redirect page that he created, they simply won't. Notwithstanding Wikipedia's famous (or infamous) delete-o-maniacs, whose work inspires Deletionpedia and others, some parts of Wikipedia are embarrassingly write-only. (I don't know why undeletable redirect pages aren't abused more.) Anyway, marginally useful misspelling redirects (like this one) are even less likely to be deleted. Maybe "they" could set a threshold on the ratio of the incidence of the misspelling to the incidence of its correct spelling(s) that decides whether a misspelling redirect page is "encyclopedic". Let's test the idea for this case: Google hits (not guaranteed accurate) give "algebriac" ÷ "algebraic" ≈ 1/1058 and "algebriac structure" ÷ "algebraic structure" ≈ 1/3323. In conclusion, don't go ape adding misspelling redirects. There're sites for that (Google's (and others') natural typo correction), as well as Wikipeetia - The Misspelled Encyclopedia. (Wikipeetia article was deleted from Wikipedia twice, so Wikipeetia is not actually notable (here).) -A876 (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael Hardy, please see here for your requested Wells Fargo diagram. Anything else, let me know. XyZAn (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michael Hardy,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Maryna Viazovska for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Vinod 16:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Michael Hardy. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Maryna Viazovska, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maryna Viazovska is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryna Viazovska until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ubiquity (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael, I need access the GA Review that was on Talk page of Cantor's first uncountability proof. Unfortunately, it was not moved to the Talk page of Georg Cantor's first set theory article. Can it be recovered and added to the talk of the new article, or at least accessed via a link? I need it because a sentence of the new article's lead was deleted. The sentence that was deleted refers to the first two sections of the new article so I think the sentence needs to be improved or put back. I wrote the lead with the guidance of the GA Review and its references. So I need the GA Review to improve the sentence or justify its existence. Thanks, RJGray (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does this link work for you? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. Thanks, RJGray (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, wanted to let you know I undid your revision on Clean Monday about movable feasts. The hyperlink you provided was to an article about an organization called Moveable Feast, not to the article about the Christian liturgical practice. I admit I was confused too what with the spelling variations. FYI because it can be rather a shock sometimes when someone "undoes" your work! Foreignshore (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken: at the time I did that edit I changed the page titled moveable feast from a redirect to Moveable Feast (with a capital "F") by moving the page titled moveable feast (observance practice) to moveable feast (with a lower-case "f"). Hence moveable feast no longer redirects to Moveable Feast. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying; I must have undid the wrong edit. Looks like it works now! Foreignshore (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, please avoid performing unilateral page moves without engaging in discussion.

Please enlist feedback from our Wikipedia community via our WP:REQMOVE standard procedures.

Especially if you realize -- by the 2nd time -- that it is possible the page move could fall under potentially controversial moves.

Thank you for reading above,

— Cirt (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page you link to says this: "If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page." If I had expected a dispute I would have discussed the matter. My recent moves seems uncontroversial. The principal meaning of the word "giraffe" is a certain animal with a long neck, and if there's also an organization called "Giraffe", one would expect the article title Giraffe to be about the animal and Giraffe (organization) to be about the organization. To have an article titled Giraffe (animal) would be unreasonable, to say the least. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the first time. But the second (2nd) time, you should have sought out discussion through the Wikipedia community. In the future, please do not communicate solely by edit summaries during your reverting process. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DIFF1 = 1 April 2016, and then again, with zero discussion the second time, in violation of WP:REQMOVE and WP:BRD at DIFF2 = 10 April 2016. — Cirt (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it appeared from the edit summary that you may simply have initially overlooked the fact that in this case one of the meanings of the term is clearly primary. In WP:DISAMBIG one reads of "primary topics". Michael Hardy (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Different spellings. One ends in a lowercase word. The other ends in an uppercase word. No need for disambiguation. Before reverting, could have attempted discussion, on the article's talk page. Please do so in the future. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a disambiguation page because the similarity is confusing. People who don't know which capitalization conventions should be followed on the particular occasion may enter search terms. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easily solved by two hatnotes at top of each page. But I wish you'd stated as much this clearly much earlier, in discussion on the talk page. — Cirt (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt realize the issue with capital letters. Can you explain more. Are we only supposed to capitalize the first word? Mim.cis (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You look hungry. Here, have some stroopwafels! The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. (I didn't know I looked hungry!) Michael Hardy (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please write the page using reliable sources. The subject seems to be very serious.Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else will have to do that. I created the page because someone moved Response rate to Response rate (survey), leaving Response rate as a redirect, while saying the term is also used in medicine. There was at least one article linking to it that was about medicine. So I made Response rate into a disambiguation page and created a stubby new article. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I've uploaded a better version (although it's still a bit rough around the edges, I'm not that great with photoshop). --McGeddon (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Intelligent Water Drops algorithm is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Water Drops algorithm until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —Ruud 14:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ancestral health has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability, or even being a cohesive subject. The title is a descriptive term encompassing subjects already covered, seems to violate WP:ELNO.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All three links in the EL section are to websites advocating for what amounts to a paeolithic diet. So it runs up against 1, 5 and possibly 2. Also, I should point out that the article meets WP:A10 of the speedy deletion criteria. I'll lay off nominating it for a speedy for a week, so you can have time to add more info. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A10 is about a new article that duplicates an existing article, yet you do not specify any existing article that you think it duplicates. Tell me which one. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed A10. Dane2007 (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Ancestral health. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Paleolithic diet. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Paleolithic diet – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: Removing good faith A10 as it is clearly not duplicating Paleolithic diet. Although diet is a large part of ancestral health, it is not the only part of it, per the sources provided. I would suggest you review the sources in the article more closely prior to nominating. Dane2007 (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hardy, this is a routine content dispute. You wrote a very mediocre article that does not cite any independent, reliable sources, and that got called to your attention. Instead of improving the article, you nitpicked the comments of the other editor. Maybe this is because there appear to be no independent, reliable sources about your topic, and you are defensive about that. Yeah, the other editor could have been more friendly but so could you. My suggestion is, why don't you go upgrade your mediocre article into something worthy of the encyclopedia, if that is possible, instead of bickering? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen: What in the world do you mean by "independent reliable sources"? Are you saying the sources I cited cannot think independently? What was "called to [my] attention" was that the pages I linked to exist for the purpose of selling something (patently false; it's a non-profit organization of professors who do research in that area) and that it's a duplicate of another article (and at first he refused to say _which_ other article, and when he did say what it was, it was obvious that it's not within light-years of being a duplicate). I wrote a _stub_ article and acknowledged that it was a stub. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Dane2007. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to User talk:Tarage. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. Dane2007 (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, do not edit my talk page again. I'll steer clear of yours as well. --Tarage (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that was only the second Wikipedian I've encountered who asserted that I should never dispute the assertions of someone who tells me I'm wrong, since telling me I'm wrong is doing me a favor. And the first one was the one I encountered only a few hours earlier. And here I speak as one who's edited Wikipedia pages every day since 2002. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there are a LOT of feelings regarding this particular incident running between all the parties who became involved. While there undoubtedly was feedback from all parties that was excessive or harsh, I think it's a perfect learning experience that sometimes a step back is needed to work towards a resolution. Remember - Wikipedians main focus is content integrity and just because one or two disagrees it doesn't mean the entire community does. This situation would've best been handled through dispute resolution. I hope you continue to contribute Michael Hardy. Dane2007 (talk) 06:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, can you please cool it with the sarcasm? Dane2007, you need to adjust your personal attacks filter a little higher please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Thank you for the feedback! I will definitely review WP:NPA myself, I had second guessed myself on that one already. Dane2007 (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

_My_ personal attacks? In daily editing of Wikipedia pages for fourteen years I've never before encountered anyone on Wikipedia who explicitly said I was forbidden to express disagreement with him because he was doing me a favor by pointing out what he said were my errors. I was willing to communicate and discuss the issues; he told me I was forbidden to communicate but should simply obey him. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know that's not what he said. Your overblown exaggeration is unhelpful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed what he said. He is a hard-core bully. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, please provide the diff where he explicitly stated you were "forbidden to express disagreement with him" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is bullying. He is angry that I would do anything so abusive as to say he was mistaken about factual assertions. I was willing to communicate about issues; he was unwilling. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's rather snappish. But it's not what you claimed he said. Probably the best thing for all is to move on. You might want to respond at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Ancestral_health. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#This is an admin.21

As you are now blocked from editing, if there's anything you wish to say at that ANI report, please post it here and I'll be happy to copy it over for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have blocked you for a short while for your continuing personal attacks against User:MjolnirPants, above (which I hadn't seen when I started that section at ANI). Your behavior is especially disgraceful as you're an admin, and if it continues after your block expires then you should expect to be blocked for longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• There's a growing consensus at ANI that my block was excessive, and so I have unblocked and I withdraw it unconditionally - and I have annotated the block log accordingly. But please try to remember the expectations of being an admin, as described at Wikipedia:Administrators#Expectations of adminship, especially the part that says "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others" (though I know it can be hard sometimes, especially if others are a little sharp with us in their interactions). Also, as you were one of the very earliest admins and may not be familiar with current practice, please familiarize yourself with the purpose of the various noticeboards (such as WP:ANI), and with the WP:CSD and WP:PROD policies (and how to respond to them). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, considering the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#This is an admin!, would you be willing to request a voluntary desysop? I am not at this time expressing any opinion as to the merits of the arguments being made at ANI because I have not personally examined the editing history. I am simply posting this because as far as I can tell nobody has ever asked you whether you actually want to be a Wikipedia administrator. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I stand by my accusation against MjolnirPants.

I find it gratuitously disrespectful to be told that my statement is a "personal attack" rather than an accusation. And what have you to say about MjolnirPants's personal attack on me, against which I defended myself? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm not sure that we have ever interacted. Despite that, I am very aware of your enormous contributions to the mathematical articles. I have a math background but one reason you have probably never seen me contribute to the math articles is that I felt the general subject was in good hands partly because of you and decided to contribute to other areas. I was surprised to see your name pop up in an odd incident at ANI. Please forgive me if this is intruding but is everything okay? It just doesn't seem quite right.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ancestral health is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancestral health until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Orange Mike | Talk 15:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]