Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:AlanE

2009-01-05T23:51:45Z

Bradlaugh: /* Scotland's History */

{{welcome}}

In case you weren't aware, typing four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) after a comment automatically produces your signature. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you...I'm new in town, so to speak.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:44, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

: AlanE, thanks for your contributions. I just gave you blocking powers so that you can block the accounts of vandals yourself, as soon as you see them. Thanks much and Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:16, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. Appreciated. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:14, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

== Categories ==
Alan, I think your comments on the monarch categories are good, and would encourage you to fix the categories as you see fit. It seems to me, since this is such a new project, that a lot of things got categorized willy-nilly style (which is understandable), and anything we can do to set things straight, I think it is better sooner than later. I think you'll notice a lot of redundant categorization on some articles too that need cleaned up. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 19:48, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

*Personally, I would check with a Sysop before doing what Colest is suggesting, especially removal of categories. Okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:49, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

==Email==

Unless there's a bug in the software, then, "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users."

Although we do not require an email address, refusing to supply one is one of several factors which can add up to grounds for banning your account. If you really support the goals of this project, why not take a couple of minutes to create a free yahoo or account and put it in your preferences? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:42, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

*Ed, check your preferences page. It was changed by Webmaster many months ago. ;-) --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:52, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
**Yes, I see that now, Terry: "E-mail (required): Enables others to contact you through your user or user_talk page without needing to reveal your identity."

OK. I will go back and change the email address in my Preferences. Hang on. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:15, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
I have changed it to the address stated at the bottom of my user page and hit the "Mail confirmation code" even though I never got one. I did get the following though: A confirmation code has already been e-mailed to you; if you recently created your account, you may wish to wait a few minutes for it to arrive before trying to request a new code.

This wiki requires that you validate your e-mail address before using e-mail features. Activate the button below to send a confirmation mail to your address. The mail will include a link containing a code; load the link in your browser to confirm that your e-mail address is valid.

The above is what I have always received...right from day one. Maybe my geriatric brain is missing something. Ban me if you wish, but it must be obvious by now I am not refusing to supply it. It is sitting there in my User Page. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:30, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

:Don't be silly. It's not grounds for banning: Terry says I was wrong. But have you tried this link? http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Emailuser/AlanE --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 00:36, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, Ed; but it tells me I need a valid email address!! Perhaps I should go away and come back as someone else... throw off AlanE and don the cloak of, um, how about Guddle. The IP address will be the same, but if I start from scratch, you (CP) will hopefully send me a confirmation code which I can send on its way (rejoicing or not) and I will be legitimate, so to speak. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:50, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

:You can get a free email address from Yahoo. Send me an email from your new account when you're set up. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 00:54, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

No, Alan...get at me on AIM if you have it, mine is on my user page. You need to fill in the box on your preferences here, AND check the box below, to the right! :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:37, 7 August 2007 (EDT)--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:37, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

==Re Buglar's "debate"==

Bugler; I would qualify for banishment. I am a non-believer in your brand of faith. I also consider myself to be pretty middle of the road in social and political matters, being conservative in some issues and left of centre in others, but certainly do not consider myself Conservative. (In other words I am normal.) I am neither American nor British. I follow the tenets of Christ's teaching and the Commandments without any of the trappings nor the passionate narrowness of orthodoxy of belief that says "we are always right and everyone else is always wrong". I do not attend a church. Too many good and wonderful people have died because that. I am known as a "man of goodwill". I know there are many others like me in Cp. I joined for the sake of the homeschoolers and others who I thought, in my vanity it now seems, might benefit from the breadth of my knowledge and my desire to share it.

Except for a long break enforced by ill-health, I have been editing since early May last year. I work at giving articles in my chosen fields, of a substance that I would have found useful in my teens when I was starting my love affair with history and classical music half a century ago. I believe passionately in historical veracity - and as much as anyone I have repaired the fun and games of historical parodists and mistakes as I have found them. (I fixed two blatant pieces of misinformation yesterday…both well over a year old.)
Go through my edits and you will see what I mean. I am actually trying to create a viable encyclopedia.

I know I am blowing my own trumpet, Bugler (um), but there is a reason - there are a lot of us here that are doing this sort of graft, many of whom would qualify for banishment under your “proposal”. More and more, Conservapedia is becoming a blog, and less “The Trustworthy Encyclopedia” – your proposal would finish that process.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:14, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

== Notice ==

We need to close night editing early tonight. Hope to see you early tomorrow morning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:29, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

== Portuguese names ==

Ok, I will review some of the Portuguese names. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 20:47, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
==Trade winds==
You're welcome...BTW, be sure to make comments on people's TALK page, the user page is for personal use. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 10:26, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

== Composers ==

Be my guest. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:22, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks...you may notice Chabrier has just arrived. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:27, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

== Richard Strauss ==

Some works are now lost. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 00:20, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

== I hope you enjoyed your breakfast ==

I was not implying that you did not contribute to this encyclopaedia and apologise for giving that impression. The guilt lies elsewhere. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:33, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Thank you, I did. And thank you for this note.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:08, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

== Schumann ==

What is wrong with the pic?
--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:45, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh 'ell! Sorry! I think I must have edited an old page. Um. If you want to revert it to your last edit, I'll do my last edit again in the morning....''Carefully'' this time. Sorry again. Gulp. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:23, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

== Sergei Prokofiev ==

Good work. Clap, Clap...!

Only a favor; Please save the valuable material that is already posted. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:32, 30 September 2008 (EDT
::Why? I made sure everything of value was transferred into my post. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:52, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

== Alfred Schnittke ==

How about an article on Alfred Schnittke?

You may use if you like: http://home.wanadoo.nl/ovar/schnopus.htm

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:48, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

::That's one from left field! I have some of his, but usually paired with Shostakovitch and the like. Viola I think. I'll have a go. Not today. I'm already late with the day's chores.
:::And I want you to think about the Prokofiev page. The double up looks a bit silly, seeing as pretty-well all the information parts of your edit are now repeats of mine. I may be back before 2pm (my time) but I doubt it. (You don't want to have a word with Andy about that do you?) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:28, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:::The repeated pieces could be just a few but not all, and users sometimes prefer to have the cake sliced. So my advice is to have that section as it is now. I admire your work and hope this will encourage you to do your best. Andy, I am sure will be glad to hear from you, please go ahead. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:54, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

::::Ok and G'morning. (It's too early to say g'day.) Give me a few days to listen to Schnittke. He's not the sort the family would like to have filling the house at all hours so I have to be on my own. He's not easy listening, but neither is Shostakovitch whom I adore!
BTW. The "''...will encourage you to do your best''" is a tad off. I left school nearly 50 years ago!
Cheers. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:26, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

==Brit==
Hehe, I was hoping that no one would notice me attempting to change the British spellings. Good thing you didn't rev the whole edit. o.O [[User:NathanG|Nate]] [[User_talk:NathanG|my opinion matters?]] 15:02, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:I was in the middle of a grump when the above came in. And why shouldn't I have a bet each way on refering/referring? BTW...what was the point of putting a single very alone reference under "References"? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:12, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

==Monarchs==
Thanks for taking up the challenge to complete the red-links in the English Monarchs navbar. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 14:20, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

:I'll get there in the end...I'm on other things for a while (suffering from a surfeit of Ethels) but I'll be back to them. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:30, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

==Redirects==

I commented on the music page you edited, but just so you know, it's always better to link to the actual page (where possible) than to link to a redirect, just because redirects can be broken, and they are harder to fix then straight links. That is, if the National Association of How To spell set out a new rule that Bach should be spelled Back, you can make one change (on the actual page with the data), and not have to worry about all the redirects. otherwise, you manually have to rewrite a bunch of redirect pages. It does mean spelling out the whole name "J.S. Bach|Bach", but in the long run, it's "better". Or so the world says. grins. --JeanJacques 18:04, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

== Christopher Wren ==

Thank you! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 13:20, 2 November 2008 (EST)

:I was thinking about the big gap between 2nd and 14th centuries overnight...but all I could remember was Henry Yvele (or Yevele) who did some of the Perpendicular stuff. (Canterbury Cathedral at least.) I think he was 14th century though. I will chase down the fella who built Edward I's Welsh castles - he's in the back of my mind somewhere but refuses to peek out. I have half a mind on it whilst I do private stuff. If I think of anyone I'll put it on the "Famous Architects" talk page. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 13:36, 2 November 2008 (EST)

:: Please do. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:46, 2 November 2008 (EST)
:::I have already...[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:51, 2 November 2008 (EST)

== !!!! ==

Oi!

Leave my edit to scottish monarchs alone, i put the link around the dates for a reason you know!!!!
thanks a lot for making me loads of extra work! :( --[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 16:11, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Or shall i put it simply, LEAVE IT ALONE!!! (i know about your work on some scottish monarchs, and i agknowledge them, dont worry.) --[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 16:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:Smile and say please when you say that. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:31, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:: -sigh- :) --[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 16:34, 5 November 2008 (EST)

::: I aim to have this list complete by the end of the week , so please dont interfere until the list is complete, then please (note: please) do either tell me on my talk page, or on the scotland talk page if you want to take bits off it, thanks--[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 16:39, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==List==

====Monarchs of Scotland====
*[[Malcolm II]] (1005-1034)
*[[Duncan I]] (1034-1040)
*[[Macbeth]] (1040-1057)
*[[Malcolm III (1057-1093)
*[[Donald Bane]] (1093-1094)
*[[Duncan II]] (1094)
*[[Donald Bane]] (1094-1097)
*[[Edgar]] (1097-1107)
*[[Alexander I]] (1107-1124)
*[[David I]] (1124-1153)
*[[Malcolm IV]] (1153-1195)
*[[William (The Lion)]] (1165-1214)
*[[Alexander II]] (1214-1249)
*[[Alexander III]] (1249-1286)
*Margaret ([[Maid of Norway]]) (1286-1290)
*[[John Baliol]] (1292-1296)
*Robert I (Robert Bruce]]) (1306-1329)
*[[David II]] (1329-1371)
'''House Of Stuart'''
*[[Robert II]] (1371-1390)
*[[Robert III]] (1390-1406)
*[[James I]] (1406-1437)
*[[James II]] (1437-1460)
*[[James III]] (1460-1488)
*[[James IV]] (1488-1513)
*[[James V]] (1513-1542)
*[[Mary Queen of Scots]] (1542-1567)
*[[James VI]] (1567-1625) ([[James I]] of England (1603-1625)

The problem now is I can't seem to link Edgar...It may need an official disambiguation page. If I were more computer literate..... [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:36, 9 November 2008 (EST)

== Don't pollute a talk page ==

Don't pollute a talk page with a personal attack, like what you just did on [[Talk:Barack Obama]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:54, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:I quote:''We are trying to build an encyclopedia here. Either help out or get out of the way, HGridley. You might find more people who think you are funny on a liberalpedia, if one exists.''

''The only truly funny thing about your note is that you call them "cantidates", which is a true record of how liberals treat Black Americans -- telling them "You can't, so depend on the government to do so for you." BHarlan 18:29, 10 November 2008 (EST)''

In my eyes, that is also a personal attack. I also consider that BHarlan's edits are, in the main, not particularly encyclopedic. That is my opinion only of course. I suppose I get a bit crabby at people who come and spend nearly all their time on variations on the same theme whilst I am getting up at four in the morning to find the time to do what I do here...which is 99point something per cent true encyclopedic. Can you deny I am trying to actually build an encyclopedia. If you think I am unproductive then ban me. if you agree I am productive then please give me at least some of the same leeway you extend to those you agree with. Cheers[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:26, 10 November 2008 (EST)

: AlanE, in hockey the third person who enters a fight is ejected. You jumped into a dispute with your own personal attack. Don't pollute a talk page like that.

: Moreover, BHarlan's comment was informative and appropriate. I found HGridley's prior comment to be offensive, despite my warning.

: Your substantive edits are appreciated. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::And don't feel bad about being singled out as a 'polluter'. Often we choose to speak to the person who has shown the greatest maturity, so a person who is already setting a good example can show an even better one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:00, 30 November 2008 (EST)

== Clausell ==

Thank you!

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:54, 14 November 2008 (EST)

== Artists ==

Done, thanks. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:22, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:Thank ''you''! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:30, 20 November 2008 (EST)

:: AlanE, please, who are those two great composers that are left? I am planing to have two composers sections to have classical along. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:23, 21 November 2008 (EST)

:::Brahms and Handel are usually considered right up there at the top.
:Film composers are a funny breed...they use the classical idiom, but its usually up to a century old. The battle scene at the start of "Gladiator" is so much like "Mars" from "The Planets" that it must be a template. The last battle in "Troy" harks back to the "Battle on the Ice" scene in Prokofiev's "Alexander Nevsky". The main phrase in the scene where Superman takes Lois for a fly in the first Superman movie, is a direct pinch from a phrase near the end of Richard Strauss' "Death and Transfiguration". They are very good at their job, but they are not "great" composers in the true sense of the word. Good, if not great composers have written film scores of course...Prokofiev, Shostakovich, William Walton, Vaughan Williams, Copland, Korngold, etc. (And did you know that the first music written specifically for a film was by Saint Saens?) but they were classical composers before they went near films.

Cole Porter, Gershwin, Berlin, Mercer, etc. were great but they were not "classical". They need their own classification. When popular composers try and write something classical (like Meredith Wilson's symphonies, or Leroy Anderson's piano concerto) it never quite gets there. I can think of only one who sits comfortably as a true classical composer whilst feted also in the popular idiom and that Leonard Bernstein. I will now go back into my hole. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:02, 21 November 2008 (EST)

:: Thank you for your reply. I like Brahms and Händel, but are they as famous as Chopin? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:14, 22 November 2008 (EST)

G'morning, Joaquín. Chopin wrote just for the piano. Apart from a couple of piano concertos and a cello sonata that is all he is known for....solo piano music. Some of the best ever written and much of it of an emotional intensity that can grab you. And for that - as well as for a strange sort of relationship with a strange sort of woman (George Sands) - he has grabbed the imagination of the public's attention (and Hollywood's) as one of the "great" composers. Which he is...''for the piano''.

Handel is known as one of the top 2 high baroque composers. People say "Bach and Handel" in the one breath - he is that good. Completely different in temperament and style in his output of course - he made and lost fortunes writing for the stage. But posterity owes him as much for his concerti grossi, organ concertos, chamber works, the two suites for augmented military band that have come down to us as the ''Water Music'' and ''Fireworks Music'' (one of which caused the first recorded traffic jam in history) his anthems and other church music, keyboard music - the lot. He is a part of every British coronation: and Christmas and Easter would not be the same in the English speaking countries without the enumerable ''Messiahs'' popping up, not only in concert halls but churches and town halls, and parks - many of them amateur productions. Grass roots stuff. I bet you that you can hum more Handel tunes than any other classical composer. He is part of the fabric of western culture right down to the farmer who turns up at his church hall to rehearse a bit of Handel for the service on Sunday.

As is Brahms, but in a different way. Brahms ain't "popular". Just great. When I say popular I mean amongst the general classical-illiterate public. And he is not for the young....you seem to grow into Brahms with age. He is recognised, though, as one of the truly great composers of "pure music"; that is music not written to a program. He is also considered the true symphonic heir to Beethoven. Like Bach and Handel mark the peak of the high baroque, and Beethoven the classical era, Brahms represents the pinnacle of the Romantic period. After him the movement started breaking up. He wrote four of the 20 great symphonies, two of the twenty great piano concertos, one of the top 4 violin concertos; he is one of the top 5 most popular writers of chamber music. His "Requiem" is in the top 5. He is one of the top four 19th century song composers. Pianists enjoy his many short piano pieces. He is second to none as a writer of "variations". When he died there was a state funeral and procession through the streets of Vienna attended by foreign heads of state...not to mention scores of thousands of ordinary citizens.

Are you sorry you asked? If you're going to hit me at 4:30 in the morning with something close to my heart.... :-) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:06, 22 November 2008 (EST)

: Excellent Alan, a very rich dissertation! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:38, 23 November 2008 (EST)

:: Thanks again! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:37, 1 December 2008 (EST)

== Ship ==

Done, it has been a pleasure my friend! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:55, 8 December 2008 (EST)

== Happy Holiday ==

The same to you my dear friend. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:34, 19 December 2008 (EST)

== Merry Christmas! ==

Merry Christmas!----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 07:02, 25 December 2008 (EST)>>>
:....And to you, Philip. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 13:22, 25 December 2008 (EST)

== Categories ==

Please only use the subcategory and not the categories above it when applying categories to articles. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:28, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Um...I gather the problem is with Wars of the Roses. Which Cat. should I not have put it under? I wanted it to be clickable from all three categories. HNY. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:17, 31 December 2008 (EST)

==Scotland's History==
What's your opinion of that Neil Oliver series on TV at the moment? [[User:Bradlaugh|Bradlaugh]] 18:40, 5 January 2009 (EST)
:Mate... I'm writing from wildest Tasmania. We're still watching Hamish Macbeth down here (albeit for the third time). If its not tabloid, I will look forward to it. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:50, 5 January 2009 (EST)
Ah... if it gets on to BBC World (if indeed that is still going) you might give it a go. As a staunch (if adopted) Northumbrian I like to see what the neighbours are up to! [[User:Bradlaugh|Bradlaugh]] 18:51, 5 January 2009 (EST)

2009-01-05T17:23:16Z

Bradlaugh: /* Members of the Arab League */

Arab League

2009-01-05T17:20:59Z

Bradlaugh: New page: The '''Arab League''', officially the '''League of Arab States''', is an organisation of Arab states, established in 1945. Originally having 6 members, the League now has a membership ...

Pyongyang

2009-01-05T17:14:04Z

Bradlaugh:

'''Pyongyang''' is the capital city of [[North Korea]].

[[Category:Capital Cities]]

Pyongyang

2009-01-05T17:13:48Z

Bradlaugh: New page: '''Pyongyang''' is the capital city of North Kopea. Category:Capital Cities

'''Pyongyang''' is the capital city of [[North Kopea]].

[[Category:Capital Cities]]

User:SamHB

2009-01-05T16:59:06Z

Bradlaugh: more rubbish

:I am suspending my activities for the duration of BRichtigen's block. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:16, 27 December 2008 (EST)

{{welcome|SamHB}}

==Math and Science==

Shortly after registering at Conservapedia, I saw, in "recent changes", a change by [[User:CSGuy]] about [[Talk:Laplace's equation]]. Perhaps unwisely, I jumped right in and promised to fix that, adding two more notes there.

But before proceeding with anything, I want to know whether I will be doing the right thing. It seems that CP at one time had, as a major goal, the creation of encyclopedic articles aimed at high-school age (homeschooled and otherwise) students. Looking around, I see four very prolific contributors to this field back in early 2007 or so:

*[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jaques Jaques] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Jaques (contribs)]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:CScience CScience] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/CScience (contribs)]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Noodles Noodles] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Noodles (contribs)]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Pixologic Pixologic]

But they are all gone, and no one seems to be minding the store these days. Is there some policy reason for this? Are articles of this type not something that CP is currently interested in?

I note also that there seems to be some kind of viewpoint that frowns upon complex numbers, as seen by poking around in the various mathematics articles. Is this true? If so, that would be quite unfortunate, because I wouldn't be able to put in the fact, which I consider very educational at the level of ambitious high-school students, that the real and complex components of complex analytic functions satisfy Laplace's equation.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:10, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

==IP Proxies==

My situation is somewhat similar (but not identical) to Deborah's: I have to use proxies. So, to paraphrase Deborah, Please don't block me.

Now it turns out that I have already been blocked once because of a proxy conflict:
:23:40, 4 May 2008 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked "AnthonyT (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (sock of banned vandals ArnieS, FrankD, SamHB, NormanTebbitt)
If I were more thin-skinned about such things, I would be offended by Karajou referring to me as a vandal, in violation of the civility guideline. Under the circumstances, it appears to be nothing more than an incorrect assumption that the use of proxies constitues vandalism. I have never seen Deborah ever commit vandalism. Nor have I.

I may start a discussion/debate page on this subject, if I ever figure out how to start such pages. The attitude toward IP proxies appears to be badly misguided and outdated, and doesn't seem to be helping Conservapedia at all.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 14:29, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Further thoughts on IP blocking, and blocking in general==

After a lot of looking through block logs, talk pages, users' contributions, vandal edits, and various controversies, it has become clear that the policy of blocking any appearance of duplicate IP addresses is counterproductive, and a total waste of effort.

:In fact, I think the entire blocking policy is being done in a nonproductive way, but that's the subject of a much longer essay in the future. But people might want to ask:

:* Is the current way sysops operate actually effective in stopping vandalism?

:* Is arguing over the statistical methodology leading to the conclusion that people in show business have a higher incidence of breast cancer distracting from more productive activities?

Getting back to IP blocks: They are completely counterproductive. Look through the contribution logs of the "vandals" that were accused of being socks of me -- AnthonyT, ArnieS, FrankD, and NormanTebbitt. They never committed vandalism (well, one of them used an off-color word.) Nor did I, nor did Deborah. They are not socks of me. I have no idea who any of them are.

The IP blocking policy is ostensibly in place to prevent people, who have been blocked based on the content of their edits, from evading the block by creating another ("sockpuppet") account and continuing what they were doing. A check of Wikipedia shows that they also have a policy against sockpuppets, but that it is only invoked when there is actual evidence of sockpuppetry. Such evidence is based on content and other factors, not on IP addresses.

Here in the 21st century, people use varied IP addresses for an enormous number of reasons. The internet is used from cell phones, "internet cafes", airports, corporate firewalls, and many other places that make it hard to draw conclusions about a person's identity. Drawing conclusions about who a person is based on the IP address from which they access the internet is just wrong. Anonymity is everywhere. One may not like it (the police and FBI sure don't), but it's a fact of contemporary internet life. Even the apparent policy that one has to use one's own name to create an account at Conservapedia is futile. '''You can't censor or police the internet!'''

As if that weren't bad enough in general, there is now a booming business of "anonymizing proxies" designed to get around censorship. These appear to have started as a way of circumventing the Chinese government's attempts to censor the internet. A couple of years ago I could find only about 5 such. There are now thousands, playing cat-and-mouse games with corporations, schools, and anyone else who tries to censor the internet. '''You can't censor or police the internet!'''

It appears that what connects me to AnthonyT, ArnieS, FrankD, and NormanTebbitt is that we used the same public proxy at one time or another. '''You can't censor or police the internet!''' Banning people for using the same IP address (or for saying things that sysops don't like) bans all the wrong people. Just look around at the block logs.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:36, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

==Writing Plans, Writing Assignments, and more Mathematics==

(Hi, Andy!)

It is my understanding that one is supposed to submit a "writing plan". I don't know where one submits it, so I'm putting mine here. It is also my understanding that sysops may give "writing assignments". I don't know how that is done, but feel free to put it here. Yes, here, on my user page, not the talk page. I give my permission for people to discuss things with me here.

Part of the writing plan was given above, relating to Laplace's equation. I still await instructions on that. There are a few more things I have noticed recently, relating to math. As before, I come at this from the standpoint of creating educational articles accessible to Junior-High or High-School-age people, whatever their actual educational circumstances.
*The mathematical series article, even after a sysop corrected one spelling error, still has 15 more, and 3 grammatical errors, and many statements that I question the mathematical correctness/appropriateness of. It doesn't explain how the geometric series formula works, it doesn't define alternating series correctly, and it doesn't explain their convergence criterion. These are all things that should be accessible to the target audience.
*I agree more with Andy than with DanielB on the fight over the fundamental theorem of calculus, but DanielB does have some good points. It could use more work.
*The gradient article is just wrong. Using the word "gradient" as a loose synonym for "derivative" is wrong. The gradient is a '''vector''' operation. This may not be accessible to our entire target audience, but it will be accessible to some, and we should explain it properly.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:23, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

: You have good ideas, and we welcome educational contributions. My objection to DanielB's edits are to the extent they remove information that may be useful to a student.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:40, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

==My attempt to contact Andy==

The following email was sent to DeanS, while I was blocked, on July 8, 2008. I do not know whether it was ever forwarded to Andy. I apologize for the unpleasant tone of this—one says things in private email that one might not say publicly. But it appears not to have gotten through, so here it is.

[Start of email]

Dean:

Please send this to Andy. He has his mail disabled. Sorry to bother you with this, but that seems to be the way it's gotta be. I'm blocked.

Andy:

The question has come up in the "Can you contact me privately?" section of your talk page (from Jinxmchue) about the legitimacy of some rather technical edits that have been made recently. He admits to having had only "Calculus in my junior year of high school", and wants more expert advice.

Well, I can provide that advice. But I've been blocked by Ed Poor. So you're going to have to wait for a month.

In the space of 6 days, Ed Poor (with a little help from Karajou) has decimated the ranks of people trying to help out with math and science articles. (Actually, worse than decimated, if one takes the true meaning of the word. "Devastated" would be a better term.)

It appears to be quite rare for 6 experts of the caliber of

*Mathoreilly
*DanielB
*LemonPeel
*SamHB (myself)
*Fantasia
*Wandering

to be trying to help Conservapedia at the same time, but this was the lucky state of CP recently. CP had an opportunity to make great progress in this area. Admittedly, not everything was polished very well at the time of the disaster, but these were good people. I, for one, am proud of my suggestion of "advanced" templates for these articles. I thought we could actually make an educational resource that people could find their way around in, and derive great enrichment from. Not all people would get the same enrichment, of course, but with articles carefully written by experts and appropriately graded, we could do a good job.

But Ed has destroyed all that. And destroyed it amidst claims of "I have taught SAT math and I earned AP credit for calculus" and "I have a year of high school physics and a year of college physics". Those boasts are ludicrous relative to the people he was blocking! Those people were real experts! Ed needs to defer to them, and make constructive comments on their efforts, and on how well those efforts are succeeding relative to his understanding. People like these don't come by very often!

Now there are lots of things that I would object to about some of these people's contributions, and I understand that some of them have been blocked for other infractions. And some (including myself) may have been less deferential than we should have been. I don't have time to track down all the details, and I'm not going to defend all of them. But I can say that:

*Mathoreilly and LemonPeel really seem to know their stuff.
*I do too, of course :-)
*While I've had some problems with DanielB (you may recall my discussing them with you several days ago), he also seems to know his stuff reasonably well. And he '''did''' create the templates that I had suggested. He also admitted that they may not be perfect, and he solicited suggestions. I can make those suggestions. But not for a month.

If you care about the status of Conservapedia as an educational resource, you should do this:

*Get Ed to back down. I realize that you place great value on sysop loyalty, but he is being way too destructive.
*Restore the following pages that Ed has deleted: Natural logarithm and Radioactivity. I can tell you that those are topics that high school students can understand when presented correctly, as they were in my high school. We can fix them. But I need to see them. Just deleting them is simply destructive of Conservapedia's aims.

It would also be good to get an explanation from Karajou of his infinite block of Mathoreilly: "(Inserting false information: Mathoreilly needs to learn his math back in grade school, and UCLA needs to give him his money back until he does.)" This seems unduly abusive. I can't find the false information, though admittedly there is a lot to look through. I may have missed something. Perhaps he can help me out. Also, I wonder if he could provide the source of his claim that Mathoreilly needs to re-learn grade-school math, or what the UCLA reference was about. Neither of those statements is consistent with my information. And the loss of Mathoreilly is a singular disaster.

Sam.

[End of email]

==An Open Letter to Ed Poor==

Ed:

I hope you are well rested from your month-long vacation from people trying to improve CP's math and science educational articles.

:Dare we say "save CP as an educational resource"? That characterization is quite apt, because the educational articles in this area have fallen into a deplorable state of disrepair, and the powers that be seem to be badly neglecting this important part of CP's mission.

I can assure you that I am well-rested. I have spent the month in deep and somber reflection and contemplation of my actions, as one is supposed to do when blocked. I have also surveyed the devastation, and have come up with a large number of examples of really bad writing, a few of which I have listed in the next section. Some of the bad writing was introduced quite recently (within the last month, while I was blocked and couldn't do anything) and was not reverted or repaired. It would seem that there are no active CP contributors who are qualified or motivated (I don't know which) to maintain these articles. Because of this, the quality of the math and science articles has actually declined over the last month, in addition to the problems that occurred (integration, derivative, integral, gradient, manifold, radioactivity. etc) in the days leading up to that. This is not what "building an encyclopedia" or "making substantive contributions" should mean.

One of the things I did in the last month was to check the state of educational knowledge of the relationship between "radiation" and "radioactivity", an issue that you seem to have been perplexed by [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Radioactivity&diff=488657&oldid=488656 here]. The McGraw-Hill Children's Dictionary (ISBN 1-57768-298-X) is a resource that I would judge to be aimed at 10-year-olds, at least 6 years younger than what I think CP's target audience should be. The blurb on the back cover indicates a target audience of "elementary school through middle school". I believe that means 8- to 13-year-olds.

Their entry for radioactivity is:
:The giving off of energy as a result of the decay of unstable atoms.
::''Uranium has a high level of radioactivity.''

Their entry for radiation is:
:The waves of energy sent out by sources of heat or light, or by a radioactive material.
::''She wore a hat to protect her skin from the radiation of the sun.''
::''Many people are concerned about radiation from nuclear waste.''

And yet the changes that you made to the page indicated that you didn't want to deal with the topic even at that introductory level. Furthermore, you made it impossible for anyone else to deal with it, by deleting the page and by blocking people. As a result, CP's page on radioactivity is not even up to the standards of the McGraw-Hill Children's Dictionary. And everyone is afraid to touch it, as though the page itself were radioactive.

In addition to the pages that were damaged by your actions of about a month ago, some more pages have deteriorated in the last month, of which I will list some below. This would not have happened if you had not driven away so many good contributors:
*Mathoreilly
*DanielB
*LemonPeel
*myself
*Fantasia
*Wandering
I have had to watch helplessly as pages were subject to inept edits.

(By the way, I'm not endorsing everything that these people did. But they were good people with good ideas, They deserved better treatment.)

===It Takes a Tough Man to Make a Tender Chicken (with apologies to Frank Perdue)===
Writing educational math and science articles, even at the elementary school level, requires an enormous amount of expertise, knowledge, and skill. Just knowing the subject matter at the level being taught isn't enough. One must know how to present it in a way that is both pedagogically correct for the intended audience and meticulously correct on the facts. The example below regarding "center" is a very simple example of getting it wrong.

Conservapedia had a particular influx of real experts about a month ago, and they were all driven away.

:Your mischaracterization of my goals and actions makes a bad start. I never opposed those who were trying to improve math and education articles. Rather, I found that too much of the edits were misleading or confusing readers.

:Articles should be accessible to homeschoolers. They need a simple introduction, and then can build on the basics to discuss advanced topics. Launching right into graduate-school or PhD. level verbiage from the start is a blatant disregard of policy and is not an improvement of anything. You may as well drop the pretense now, or you simply won't be allowed to contribute to this project.

:--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:43, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::I never characterized, or mischaracterized, your goals. I do not speculate on the goals of people I do not know well. The closest I came to saying something about your goals was "indicated that you didn't want to deal with the topic [radioactivity]" It is a ''fact'' that you didn't deal with it. It is a ''perception on my part'' that the reason was that you didn't want to. If that perception was wrong, and your not dealing with it was for some reason other than that you didn't want to, I apologize.

::Now I ''did'' characterize your ''actions''. I said that you, with help from Karajou, drove away 6 contributors by blocking them. That was not a mischaracterization. It was a fact.

:::"I found that too much of the edits were misleading ..."

::''I fully agree with you!'' (Believe it or not, I ''am'' on Conservapedia's side, and your side when you are helping, which you often, but not always, do.)

:::"[articles] need a simple introduction, and then can build on the basics to discuss advanced topics"

::'''Yes! Yes! Yes!!!!''' I agree fully!

:::"Launching right into graduate-school or PhD ..."

::''I agree!''. I fully sympathize with this policy. ''But why did you put this complaint on'' '''my''' ''user page?'' I never did any of that. I believe that my contributions were correct, lucid, and properly pitched at the target audience. I am proud of them. Go and see for yourself.

:::"You may as well drop the pretense now ..."

::I don't understand this. What am I pretending? Do you think I am pretending to have some expertise that I don't have? If so, you are wrong, and I am offended.

==Articles that need improvement==

*Center—"a point that, on average, the points of the shape are equidistant from"? If you take the '''average''' of a set of measurements, you will get just one number. Of course the result will all be the same! This is muddled thinking. A correct definition is a little more complicated, but not too much so.

*Eigenvector and Eigenvalue—Believe it or not, these concepts can be explained in a sensible, albeit elementary way, to ambitious high school students.

*Quantum mechanics—More difficult to do well, but we really can do a lot better, if you let people work on it.

There are a number of others; I won't bore you with the details. One of them was edited by someone with impressive status at CP, in a manner that seems to me to be parody, or, at the very least, not serious.

==Restoring material==
So what do I want from you? Ideally, I'd like you to apologize for your actions, unblock the remaining people, and indicate that you (and others) will obtain an expert consensus before deleting edits or blocking accounts in the future. But if this is not something that you are able to do, I will understand.

But I really would like you to make available the material that you deleted from [[Radioactivity]] and [[natural logarithm]]. It seems that you not only reverted the entire contents of these pages, but you deleted the entire edit history (and, ine case, the entire page), so that no one can see the former content. Please make that former content available, either by restoring the former history and then editing the current content on top of that, or by making the former content available elsewhere. Here on my user page, my talk page, your page, a subpage of something, email; anywhere. That way, I may be able to make a good decision how to proceed.

Whether I will actually do anything is another matter. If I'm going to be blocked and/or have my work deleted, there's really no point, is there?

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:59, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

==Another Open Letter to Ed Poor==

Ed:

I see that you have blocked my friend and colleague DiEb. There's essentially no one left. I'm not going to contribute further. This is just an impossible place to work. I can not figure out what your vision for educational math and science articles is, or how you plan to get there, but it obviously doesn't include the 6 people named above, or DiEb.

I have done a huge amount of looking around at the various math articles, during my recent sabbatical and since then. I'd like to share my observations, and suggest how you can make things better.

A recurring claim, both here and, especially, at that other site, is that you are an ignoramus and a bully. I don't agree. After very careful reading of your edits, it is clear that you do know the material, and do have good judgment (see my comments above) about pitching it correctly to the target audience.

*Sorry, I'm going to have to violate the civility policy, and I'm going to say things that could be considered to be characterizations of your motives. I'm also going to say unpleasant things about Foxtrot. I apologize for this, but that's the way it has to be. You can block me or not—I won't be back.

I believe that you have good ideas, but you also have a tendency to bully people, and you let the latter interfere with the former. You could have done so much, but the bullying side of your internet/wiki personality (I have no idea what you are like personally; we'd probably get along fine) kept getting in the way. This is particularly sad in view of the fact that you have so much wiki experience here, at WP, and elsewhere. You could have made the educational offerings superb.

There are many places where you were on the right track, with good ideas and making good comments, and then you needlessly blew someone away. You could have just discussed the issues on article talk pages and user talk pages, encouraging people to write articles consistent with you vision. And, as I have said before, your vision is good. There was a recent case ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Real_number&diff=503970&oldid=503932]) in which you did offer helpful advice and guidance. '''Why didn't you do more of that, and less bullying?'''

There are many other places where you could have made constructive edits, or given constructive advice to others:
*Series (I discussed this above; you could have looked at it.)
*Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (ditto)
*Gradient (ditto)
*Radioactivity (Can we stop the bickering, reversions, and blocks, and restore the article, and go from there to make it a high quality article?)
*Natural Logarithm (ditto)

A good example of things going wrong is the [[Line segment]] article. I completely understand, and agree with, what you wanted. But "I suspect sabotage"?? There was no sabotage there! Nor was it, as Foxtrot claimed, a misplaced parenthesis. I was a serious misunderstanding, by Foxtrot and others, of the distinction between the geometric concepts of a line or line segment, and the arithmetic/algebra/calculus concept of what the real numbers are and why we call them the "real line". You knew that, and I knew that. You could have straightened out the mess. You could have taken Foxtrot aside and expressed your concern. Or you could even have asked me (writing assignment!) to fix it. I was busy cleaning up his mess (and it ''was'' parody) at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Boolean_value&oldid=491459 boolean value]. I knew about the line segment problem, and was going to get to it.

By the way, I notice your recent statement that you scored in the 99th percentile in the math SAT.
*There's no point in saying that; on the internet people can't check such things, so statements like that just come across as foolish bluster.
*A better way to impress people, and the only way that works on the internet, is to write well. "By their fruits ye shall know them." It took me a while to figure out that you can write well. Others never saw that, and considered you ignorant. You could have shown your positive side.
*I hope you can appreciate that many of the 7 of us also scored in the 99th percentile. As well as the advanced math and physics achievement tests, AP calculus and physics, MAA competition, Putnam competition, GRE, oral exams, thesis defense, etc.

Getting back to constructive things you can do, and that you are going to have to do without anyone's help, I would suggest that a good place to start would be to look at Foxtrot's contributions and his [[User:Foxtrot/Math|planned agenda]]. Sorry for the personal remark, but he is not a good writer at all. His [[center]] article is just garbage. And his [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Boolean_value&oldid=491459 boolean value] edit was, well, "Father of logical truths"?

Then finish the [[Limit_%28mathematics%29]] page that DiEb and I were working on. You'll see that I did the "limit as finite X is infinite" section, but didn't get to the "limit at infinite X is finite" section. Then explain convergent sequences in terms of that. Then go to the [[Series_%28mathematics%29]] page (another real disaster) and connect the two concepts. Be sure to give a very careful explanation of the distinction between, and connection between, a ''sequence'' that converges to a number, and a ''series'' whose ''partial sums'' comprise a sequence that converges to a number. Then clean up the material about convergence criteria—it's full of errors and not explained well in any case.

While you are there, you might want to introduce the remarkable (to high-school students) fact that a series made up of rational numbers can converge to an irrational number. Use the fact that non-integral square roots are irrational—the thing from the ancient Greeks. (I wrote up a draft of this section a couple of weeks ago, but it will never see the light of day.) And that you can ''define'' the real numbers this way. (You and I know that as the construction by Cauchy sequences.)

While on the subject of defining the reals, go over to the Dedekind cut part of [[Real analysis]] and fix up all the errors there. It's a disaster.

Oh, and you might want to restore and fix natural logarithm and radioactivity. Just do it.

Well, that's it. Good luck. Try to play "good cop" more, OK?

I won't be contributing any more, so you don't need to block me. You are invited to show restraint.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:32, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

==Note to self==
<nowiki>{{Template:Math-e}}</nowiki>
:e for early HS
:m for mid HS
:h for late HS or early university
:a for late university/grad

==My mathematics sandbox==
I'm back from my 3-month vacation (1 month at the suggestion of Foxtrot, and 2 months of boycott.)

Since I'm on probation, I assume that I am not permitted to edit any mainspace articles or talk pages, so I will be doing my work here, in "sandbox" pages. If anyone in authority thinks these are acceptable for copying to the mainspace, please let me know. Please don't just copy stuff yourself—I won't get recognition in the edit history, and I'll never get out of jail.

I'm having trouble getting the nifty math equations to display. They look OK in the preview, but not in the finished product. Similar things in math pages elsewhere don't have this problem. Is it related to this being in the user page space?

Here is a test:
:<math>a = \rho\ \cos\theta\,</math>
:<math>b = \rho\ \sin\theta\,</math>
:<math>\rho = \sqrt{a^2+b^2}\,</math>
:<math>\theta = \tan^{-1}(b/a)\,</math> (with a small amount of ambiguity)

It looks fine in the preview, of course.

Sure enough, it looks fine here also. The problem is because it's a subpage. Sorry.

===Complex number===
[[User:SamHB/Complex number]].

:A huge rewrite, that I think puts complex numbers into the appropriate perspective in math, science, and technology. Previous writing on this subject seemed to present it in a way that I found somewhat dismissive. I have demoted some material, though I don't think I have removed anything outright. The reason is that the powers that be really don't like removal of stuff. I consider some of the material in this page to be irrelevant to a pedagogically proper presentation, and would like to take it out. I welcome discussion. Right here in the castle; it's OK. Or on the talk page. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 14:33, 28 November 2008 (EST)

===Complex analytic functions===
[[User:SamHB/Complex analytic function]]

:A new article, to expand more on complex numbers. There is a mainspace article on this, though it is really a stub.

===Laplace's equation===
[[User:SamHB/Laplace's equation]]

:Another article. Something I started a long time ago; my first attempt to get into math articles.

===Mathematical paradoxes===
[[User:SamHB/Mathematical paradoxes]]

:New article (Well, there is an extremely short thing at [[paradox]], but it doesn't come close to doing justice to this topic.)
:The main reason for this is to help put into perspective the "absurd result" discussion going on in the [[Talk:Axiom of Choice]] page.

===Dense Subset===
[[User:SamHB/Dense subset]]

:A rewrite of the existing article. This arose from a challenge posed to Ed Poor. See [[User_Talk:Ed_Poor#Dense_subset]].

===Function===
[[User:SamHB/Function]]

:Improvement over existing article; shows connection to "bijection", for example.

===Continuity===
[[User:SamHB/Continuity]]

:Rewrite of the existing article. Like "Dense Subset" above, it uses multiple grading templates within one article. Note: Until the "calculus" page is improved, I can't really make the third section make much sense.

===Group===
[[User:SamHB/Group (mathematics)]]

:Rewrite. The existing article was long on obscure examples and short on useful ones. NOTE: This contains some references to things that are probably at too high a level for a high-school-level treatment, such as unitary groups, SO(3), and eigenvectors. This material was put in under the "cultural enlightenment" doctrine—that it is OK to tantalize the students with things that they won't fully understand. See the discussion of Kepler's laws and isotopic stability at [[User_talk:ElizabethK]].

===Limit===
[[User:SamHB/Limit (mathematics)]]

:The article I was working on when the unfortunate event of 28 Aug 2008 overtook me.

===Cauchy sequence===
[[User:SamHB/Cauchy sequence]]

:Rewrite. The previous article missed the point. The point is subtle.

===Dedekind cut===
[[User:SamHB/Dedekind cut]]

:New/rewrite. The previous material on this was in the [[real analysis]] page, and was hopelessly wrong. The "foundations of real analysis" were not "shaken", nor did Dedekind cuts "undercut the assumption of the continuity of the real line, by ''cutting'' at ''gaps'' between points". Dedekind cuts specifically '''maintain''' continuity and density; they do not create gaps. Also, they have nothing to do with "[[elementary_proof|non-elementary]] methods" (complex numbers), or the axiom of choice. The real analysis page, like many pages, needs an overhaul.

===Bijection===
[[User:SamHB/Bijection]]

:Improvement over existing article.

===Injection===
[[User:SamHB/Injection (mathematics)]]

:New.

===Surjection===
[[User:SamHB/Surjection]]

:New.

===Countable===
[[User:SamHB/Countable]]

:Improvement over existing article. There is considerable overlap with a "cardinality" article, and a serious question of what material should go into what article. But, for now, I've put all relevant information here.

===Hodge star===
[[User:SamHB/Hodge star]]

:I'm not endorsing this page at all! It is way over the level of what should exist here at CP. But, if we have it, it should not wikilink from the cotangent bundle to the trig function.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 14:33, 28 November 2008 (EST)

==On Complex Numbers and Light Bulbs==
It has been suggested, at [[Conservapedia:Critical_Thinking_in_Math]], that the ratings of light bulbs can illustrate the irrelevance of complex numbers to real-world issues. This is in fact an uncannily bad choice of analogy, because light bulbs are commonly operated on alternating current, and the analysis and design of AC circuits in one of the areas in which complex numbers are used most successfully.

At an operating frequency of 60 Hz, light bulbs do not exhibit much phase shift, that is, much inductive or capacitive reactance, but the effects still exist. Let's go through some of the many ways in which electrical engineers measure things in terms of complex numbers.
*What is commonly called ''resistance'' at DC, that is, the ratio of voltage over current, becomes the complex quantity ''impedance'', because the voltage and current may not be in phase with each other.
*''Impedance'', the true ratio of voltage over current, is a complex number.
*The real part of the impedance is called the ''resistance''.
*The imaginary part of the impedance is called the ''reactance''.
*Depending on the sign of the reactance, it is characterized as ''capacitive reactance'' or ''inductive reactance''. ''Capacitors'' and ''inductors'' are electronic components designed to exhibit these reactances in fairly pure form.
*The reciprocal of the impedance, as a complex number, is the ''conductance''.
*The real part of the conductance is called the ''admittance''. Because of the properties of complex division, it is not the reciprocal of the resistance.
*The imaginary part of the conductance is called the ''susceptance''. It is not the reciprocal of the reactance.
*Because of phase differences, the power actually consumed by a device may not be the product of the voltage and current. For this reason, devices may be rated in ''volt-amperes'', or in ''watts''. Because of the low frequency involved, a 60 watt light bulb is also very nearly a 60 volt-ampere light bulb.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:05, 25 December 2008 (EST)

==Want Math?==

:I am suspending my activities for the duration of BRichtigen's block. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:24, 27 December 2008 (EST)

2009-01-05T15:15:53Z

Bradlaugh:

A '''short story''' is a literaery form, a piece of [[prose]] [[fiction]] that is short in length (shorter than a [[novella]] or a [[novel]]). Although the short story is currently out of fashion, many eminent authors have composed them, including [[Ernest Hemingway]], [[James Joyce]], [[P.G. Wodehouse]], [[Katherine Mansfield]], [[William Trevor]], [[Charles Dickens]] and many others. The author [[Damon Runyan]] is known for his humorous short stories.

[[Category:Literature]]

Short story

2009-01-05T15:15:23Z

Bradlaugh: New page: A '''short story''' is a literaery form, a piece of prose fiction that is short in length (shorter than a novella or a novel). Although the short story is currently out of ...

Ostend

2009-01-05T15:09:39Z

Bradlaugh:

'''Ostend''' ([[Flemish]]: ''Oostende'' [[French]]: ''Ostende'') is a port city in the [[Flanders]] region of [[Belgium]], located on the [[English Channel]]. It is Belgium's main [[ferry]] port, with services to [[Dover]], [[Folkestone]] and other locations in south-east [[England]].

[[Category:Belgian Cities and Towns]]

Ostend

2009-01-05T15:09:07Z

Bradlaugh: New page: '''Ostend''' (Flemish: ''Oostende'' French: ''Ostende'') is a port city in the Fladers region of Belgium, located on the English Channel. It is Belgium's main ferry...

'''Ostend''' ([[Flemish]]: ''Oostende'' [[French]]: ''Ostende'') is a port city in the [[Fladers]] region of [[Belgium]], located on the [[English Channel]]. It is Belgium's main [[ferry]] port, with services to [[Dover]], [[Folkestone]] and other locations in south-east [[England]].

[[Category:Belgian Cities and Towns]]

Leuven

2009-01-05T15:02:16Z

Bradlaugh:

'''Louvain''' ([[Flemish]]: ''Leuven'') is a town of about 85,000 people in the [[Wallonia]] region of [[Belgium]]. It has the highest density of church bells in [[Europe]]. It also had the first [[Christian]] medical school, dating from the [[Middle Ages]].
[[category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Belgian Cities and Towns]]

Bruges

2009-01-05T14:16:51Z

Bradlaugh:

'''Bruges''' ([[Flemish]]: ''Brugge'') is a historic city of [[Flanders]], in western [[Belgium]]. In medieval and early-modern times it was noted as a centre of the cloth industry; today, its gothic architecture and quiet canals meke it a prominent tourist destination.

[[Category:Belgian Cities and Towns]]

2009-01-05T13:17:04Z

Bradlaugh:

A '''war of attrition''' is a war in which the competing sides seek to win by exhausting the enemy's resources, rather than by a decisive battlefield victory. Such wars tend to be long-lasting, with relatively static battlefronts. Probably the best modern example of a war of attrition was the conflict on the Western Front in the [[First World War]] (1914-1918); another is the [[Iran-Iraq War]] (1980-1988).

No war is by intention a war of attrition; rather, the aggressor almost invariably expects a swift victory ([[Germany]] invading [[Belgium]] and [[France]] in 1914, Germany invading the [[USSR]] in 1941, the Allies invading [[Italy]] in 1943, [[Iraq]] invading [[Iran]] in 1980), and it is only once such hopes are disappointed that a war takes on an attritional character.

[[Category:Wars]]