User talk:Plautus satire

Please try to use the sections, if you have a criticism, go to the critics section. I'll try to keep everything sort of organized so it's easy to navigate. Links to the audit trail for this page can be found in a link at the bottom titled "Page history". This page is not to be used to store personal shortcuts for other users. Anything on this page is subject to summary deletion. All audit trails will be left intact.

Contents

1 Reserved Section 2 Questions 3 Comments 4 Complaints 5 Everything Else 1 Troll mafia 2 Mentoring 3 please refrain 4 Arbitration 5 Mercy 6 revert talk 7 premature reversion 8 Comments on Users 8.1 User:Platus satire and Requests for comment 8.2 Link to Requests for Comment on Plautus Satire 8.3 No vendettas please 9 You don't know what you're talking about 10 Unverified images

Reserved Section

(Section reserved for static comments by Plautus satire. All other comments will fit elsewhere, I promise. Any willful editions to this section by other than Plautus satire will be summarily resectioned or deleted upon discovery.)

Questions

(To be used to pose questions to Plautus satire.)

Comments

(To be used to make comments to Plautus satire.)

Hi. I for one applaud your attempts to set the Big Bang article where it belongs. You are doing what I dare not do. At the same time though, nothing we can say or do to that article will ever shift the view of the mainstreamers. Any thing we do to make it more 'npov' is just thrown out or modified to be back in tune with the big bang. Like your addition about the quasar light curves. RR removed your comment and said something like "consensus says this is not real", so I reinserted your comment in a more proper wording and now look, the whole damn thing was removed from the page. We are quacks to them. We can show them science, but it falls on the eyes of the blind. Anyhow, good luck. -Ionized 22:05, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

I am beginning to see that I misinterpreted a lot of people I have encountered, like you and Sam Spade, for example, Ionized. I see now that being incredibly defensive and timid is survival technique. I wish I had taken this advice sooner! :) - Plautus satire 22:20, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus,

On the Tornado talk page, you rejected a request for a cite to some authority for your views on Tornados by calling the request an invalid appeal to authority. That's not right.

Wikipedia is not a forum for independent research nor even for independent observations. That's good stuff for people to do -- but -- elsewhere. That's not our mission. We're merely reporters of the existing state of knowledge, not creators of new knowledge. Admittedly the difference between the two can sometimes be subtle, but one key here is that requests for attribution or authority are perfectly valid, and a request that marginal views be eliminated unless they can be attributed to an actual source is also valid.

You've gotten off on the wrong foot with a lot of people, and I hope that you'll find a way to work through that. But one of the most important things you can do is to avoid controversy. Don't add anything unless you're on solid ground.

Remember the true meaning of NPOV. Good NPOV writing is writing that no reasonable person can possibly disagree with. If you write NPOV, no one can hassle you without being unreasonable. In the Tornado case, you'd be on 100% solid ground if you cited a textbook or book by a major scientist or the NOAA or anybody. Jimbo Wales 22:59, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I do definitely need some practice with objective voice, probably because I don't normally qualify every outlandish claim I make in casual conversation.

But in at least one case appeal to authority was made after I had already provided an authoritative source. This source was a paper published by an acting professor (Dr. Edward U. Condon) doing research under the umbrella of an accredited university (Conducted by the University of Colorado, Under contract No. 44620-67-C-0035 With the United States Air Force) in 1968, and cited many facts about tornadoes that people are unwilling to entertain in any fashion if it comes from me (plautoplasmaphobia). The reason this paper was challenged is because it has the term "UFO" in the title, which, three decades ago, at the top of a report for the US Air Force, did not have the same sociological context that it does today. I admit I am a plasmophile, am I therefore to be made the subject of fun? - Plautus satire 05:01, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Complaints

(To be used to make complaints about Plautus satire.)

Everything Else

(If you don't have a question, comment or complaint, you should put your editions here. Outside of this disclaimer and the section title, this section is free game for any and all editions and is subject only to ordinary rules and guidelines of wikipedia. Resectioning is appropriate only from here. Plautus satire assumes no maintenance of any text below this notice.)

Troll mafia

Please do not create idiosyncratic nonsense pages like "troll mafia". Wikipedia is not a vehicle for personal publishing, it strives to be a collection of verifiable, informative articles.—Eloquence 00:07, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your polite request. I will create whatever pages I wish. I do not choose to defend the Troll Mafia page here, as there is an entry for Troll Mafia and a talk page already. - Plautus satire 01:59, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC) (Troll mafia entry deleted within hours of creation, even though it is no less idosynchratic than a typical, inconsequential human migration story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falasha). This page was just now a "random page" served to me by wikipedia. - Plautus satire 04:51, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC))

Listen, you don't own Wikipedia. If other Wikipedians decide that the page you created is unsuitable for WP, they can delete it. It can only be deleted if a consensus has been reached to delete such an article, however.WhisperToMe 02:02, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your attempt to educate me. While I already knew that I do not own wikipedia, this comment is insightful and relevant. I would like to point out that you also do not own wikipedia, so we are in the same small bit of ground here, on equal footing. Can we not find some way to coexist peacefully? - Plautus satire 02:07, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mentoring

If you're serious about mentoring (and not just "having me on"), you might try some of the following ideas:

(I am most definitely not having you on, if you read my messages to you and accept them as sincere. I particuarly want to draw your attention to the link from "tutelage" in that passage. Both definitions apply to my request, as does the sample text referring to a "bodyguard". - Plautus satire 22:15, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC))

• Remove the talk pages are useless section from your user page.

(Okay, I will seriously consider this advice in the spirit in which you give it. Meanwhile, can you take a look at the tornado talk page in its entirety and tell me if you honestly think I accomplished anything by "winning" my case on a talk page? Or would you argue that I did not adequately state the case for the changes I made? I'm not trying to be combative, I will (probably) remove the statement that talk pages are useless, though I did intend to fill that with proof, like the talk page for the tornado entry.)

• Avoid making declarations like, "I will create whatever pages I wish."

(You're right, that was a pure expression of arrogance and confidence, it was inappropriate and unnecessary strutting. - Plautus satire 22:15, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC))

You'll enjoy your stay at Wikipedia if you work on your cooperation skills. I did, and it's worked wonders for me: believe it or not, in my first few months there was considerable debate about banning me permanently from the website. See how far I've come now! --Uncle Ed 22:01, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(I am still digesting this, I may respond later or I may not other than to say thanks for the steady stream of advice, it is helping me. - Plautus satire 22:15, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC))

Thanks for a pleasant conversation today. I gotta go now, but we can talk again tomorrow. Bye! --Uncle Ed 22:35, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is this what I get for trusting you, Ed Poor? You try to [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Tornado&curid=37564&action=history)? - Plautus satire 22:41, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi. Article talk pages are for discussing the content of articles. If you want to talk to a specific user about something not relating to any particular article, the best place for it is their user talk page. --Camembert

Thanks for the advice, Camembert, I will endeavor to remember that, though there are a lot of little rules to remember. Though I try hard, I can't seem to remember them all, and many of them conflict with the behaviour of you, Ed Poor, Raul654, silsor, Curps, SheikYerBooty and many, many others who act out with impunity. Once again, thank you for the advice, I will do my best to follow it. - Plautus satire 00:27, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I have written something in your defense. I advise you redouble your efforts not to make any personal attacks whatsoever, whenever someone insults you or deletes your text -- you need to document it and keep a record of it, so that you can build a case that you are being harrassed. For the time being, it is also in your interest to avoid making any controversial edits whatsoever. Of course, you have the right to edit -- and I think your edits are valid; however, it is in your interest to try and avoid further confrontation.

A defense of Plautus (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010980.html)

Lirath Q. Pynnor

Thanks for the expression of soliderity, Lir. We're all in this together, even though some would prefer to have enemies. I hope I can live up to the good advice you offer, except for your suggestion that I document and track every sin against me. I don't want these people to pay for their sins, the peace is the reward for us all. - Plautus satire 04:46, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Im not saying that you should document their crimes, so that they can be found guilty. No, you should document them so that when they refer to those instance in which you yourself have been rude or disagreeable -- you can point out that they have been far more rude, and it is their inappropriate attitude which caused you to "lose your cool". Lirath Q. Pynnor

I agree with you that it's a sensible precaution against abuse, but perhaps it's possible I can just avoid the abuse by being civil and reasonable and maybe even polite and courteous when it's not too draining. - Plautus satire 05:09, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

please refrain

Please refrain from mocking other users. Review Wikiquette when you can. Thanks! Kingturtle 06:03, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good advice, Kingturtle. All I can say is it's all meant in fun, I mean no disrespect. - Plautus satire 06:21, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK. Fair enough :) Kingturtle 06:26, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus, your constant manipulations of talk pages is not going to work. I will check every edit you make and revert them when I see moving other people's comments around. You've been asked not to do this and it's been pointed out many times that it's a violation of accepted practice. So cut it out. --SheikYerBooty 06:13, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

It's not a violation of accepted practice to organize a thread so it's coherent instead of one long incoherent ramble. - Plautus satire 06:20, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Maybe check out the Big Bang talk page.. Plautus hasnt touched it in a while, and another user has completely moved things around, almost even more incoherent. I swear that some paragraphs of mine have been removed.. odd too, since I try to write with grace, clarity, and references. I dont know what Plautus has been up to, but its obvious he is not the only one who edits talk pages. -Ionized 23:38, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

Correction, my paragraphs where not erased, just moved. Im trying to piece togethor the original order again. -Ionized 00:08, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration

user:Jimbo Wales has made two posts concerning the dispute between yourself and other members of the Wikipedia community:

My view is that Ed was acting very bravely and forthrightly as mediator.
I take this as a recommendation that this go to arbitration so I am
referring this matter to the arbitration committee.

Also, counter to Ed's proposal, but also in the spirit of not
encouraging vigilantism, I am temp-banning Plautus under the
arbitration committee makes some kind of decision.

--Jimbo

I have banned Plautus satire.  I put '7 days' as the length of time
for the ban, but it really lasts until the arbitration committee makes
their decision (which will be within that 7 days).

It is outside the scope of what I want to do, but the general uproar
was large, and the community consensus broad.  My own judgment of his
actions *since* I warned him and *since* Ed had expressed optimism
suggested strongly that reform was not likely to continue.

--Jimbo

Refs: [2] (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/011037.html) [3] (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/011034.html)

As you are temporarilly banned, you may find it difficult to participate in the arbitration process, which has typically centered around wikipedia:requests for arbitration. Please email me at wikipedia@myreddice.co.uk to discuss the best way to work around this unfortunate state of affairs.

Thanks for your time, -Martin "MyRedDice" Harper

Mercy

In the spirit of Gandalf, and following the (fictional) example of Frodo, I took the extraordinary step of un-blocking you.

Evercat and Jimbo disagreed, and that settles it. Please talk to the Arbitration Committee. --Uncle Ed 17:09, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

revert talk

from Wikipedia talk:How to revert a page to an earlier version

premature reversion

I'm sure this will be viewed by some as an attempt at a troll-led coup or something, but here goes:

I propose a change to what I observe to be a prevailing, popular culture around here. That culture seems to condone hasty reversion of a controversial edit.

As I see it you can categorize a given edit scenario in one of two ways. The first type would be an unexplained edit, by which I mean an edit that is not either in discussion or led quickly to discussion on that entry's "talk" page. The second type, obviously, would be an edit that was either announced or challenged and responded to on that entry's "talk" page.

The current prevailing attitude seems to be that if the edit is unpopular, it's okay to revert it because "nobody" wants to see it there. As I understand the process, editing an entry to add and/or delete text is going to increase the size of the database. That is a given. It's the nature of the beast. If you want user-modifiable text, you pay that price for overhead. Should we all also have to pay the price for users who simply want to add another copy of the "accepted" entry? I suggest that we should not.

Reverting to an "original" entry without a thorough discussion of the issue does two things that I feel are detrimental. The added bloat to the database is one. The other is the removal of the "unpopular" edit, which skews the reactions to it (by depriving it of adequate coverage), and immediately sets up a confrontation with the author of an edit in good faith, who of course would like his entry to have its "fifteen minutes" so to speak. The page histories aren't going anywhere, so why the rush to bury new edits that one person disagrees with? And make no mistake, one person is always responsible for every decision to "revert" an entry. Whether others INTENDED to is of no consequence, just as it is of no consequence in this matter if hundreds view the entry WITHOUT reverting it.

For the above reasons I would suggest that all users be less hasty to revert an edit, as it can always be reverted later, the page history will be fine, I promise. Reverting an edit does not remove it from the database and does not afford the previous entry any more or less protection than it enjoys while the edit is being viewed and debated. For these two compelling reasons alone, I feel the case is made to caution people more strongly about hasty reversions. The third reason, of allowing controversial views (which are practically by definition MINORITY views), is one check against tyranny of the majority. Refusing to look through Gallileo's telescope is one thing, but knocking it over so nobody behind you can look is quite another. - Plautus

A sensible case, but incorrect, becaues it overlooks one of our primary goals. Database size is barely a concern - hard drive space is cheap and text is small. What we are strongly concerened about letting blatantly POV comments stay in the articles even a second longer than they should.→Raul654 05:17, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the text being small, it should be noted that the entire article is saved in the database for every single edit. Of course, if that ever became a problem (and it's getting there, the compressed backup of the reversion history is almost 4 gigs), the best solution would be to store the history in a smarter format. Anthony DiPierro 05:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is really a difficult one. What you say is correct. Reverts do happen too rapidly sometimes. On the other hand, what Raul says is also correct. The page is on public view with what is often a bad edit on it. Maybe there needs to be a mode in between the two which are currently implemented. Currently, either pages can be immediately edited, or they are completely protected from editing. Perhaps the solution is to have a sandbox mode for pages too. This mode would allow a page to be edited, but it wouldn't show up as the current version until a set period of time elapsed, or perhaps until someone pressed the publish button. That way work could progress, without risk of wikipedia looking bad for having innacurate material on it. ShaneKing 05:42, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why not have a voluntary one-hour wait on reversions of edits that are being debated? All the edits are timestamped, if it's less than an hour old, wait for a response on the talk page before you revert. Would that be so hard? - Plautus

Unfortunately, experience indicates that those whose edits are reverted are often unwilling to discuss before making the edit again. Since what is reverted usually merits removal, a time limit for reversion would increase the residence time of inaccurate or misleading information. The vast majority of initial reversions are appropriate removal of simple vandalism like deliberately misleading edits, such as replacing 1066 with 1067, or inserting swearing. There are exceptions, yours being one of them, where another course is likely to be more productive, overall. Jamesday 11:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Simplier idea. Why not just have a 2-3 minute "cool off" period following a revert? Either way, discussion like that is pointless - you've have a better chance of being picked for the space program than getting a new requested feature on wikipedia. →Raul654 05:46, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Raul654, you should not be posting any more here until you've removed your comments on the personal behaviour of others. You have no credible voice here until you do. - Plautus

I did reply to the above, and (as I said), I consider the matter finished. As far as credibility, (what's a tactful way of saying this?) with a track record like yours, you should not seek to make it an issue. →Raul654 07:21, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

You mean my track record of being harassed and hounded by you wherever I post? - Plautus satire 22:05, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Even simpler idea. Let's call this "sandbox mode" the talk page. And call the publish button "unprotect." Now, all you need is to change the policy so that the page reverts back to the pre-edit-war version whenever there's an edit war. Anthony DiPierro 05:48, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Talk pages don't address the issue of database bloat, they contribute to the problem. And what's at issue here is not the search for yet another new method for protecting "accepted" pages. What's at issue is the very real phenomenon of valid data being supressed by a handful of very active, very insistent users who would prefer this be their own private Idaho. - Plautus

The reason I suggest something other than the talk page is because the talk page isn't as tactile (for want of a better word). I think it's sometimes helpful to put changes in context that you get when seeing the entire article, rather than snippets on the talk page. Not that it really bothers me, I try to avoid controversy. ShaneKing 05:58, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I do see your point. But there's no rule that you can't put whole paragraphs or even whole articles on the talk page. In fact, you could even start a subpage of the talk page to mock up your complete changes. Rather than bloat the code with "sandbox mode," just use talk:thepage/sandbox.Anthony DiPierro 06:04, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There's also no rule that says "accepted" data is more valid than a recent edit. - Plautus

---

So-called "bad edits" are not something that the user base of wikipedia needs to be protected from. The assumptions that VOLUNTARY easing back on kneejerk reversion would lead to rampant idiocy and inaccuracy in the entries implies that all the "accepted" edits that get through these dedicated self-appointed gatekeepers are inherently "more right" than the edits.

Every "accepted" edit on every page on this site has a page history. If you check these page histories you'll find that nearly every large page has had plenty of "accepted" information that was later found to be erroneous and edited out. And there are even cases where valid, verified information was "reverted" many times back to an inaccurate entry. Why is protecting "accepted" data deemed more important than ensuring accurate data? If we are seldom exposed (due to hyperactive "gatekeepers") to ideas contrary to the "accepted" edits, how will erroneous information be removed? How will new relevant information be added? Are we to simply trust that the most active users of wikipedia are the most wise, and should determine not only what is right and what is wrong, but which ("right" or "wrong") version people should even be allowed to see.

The progress of science is as much reliant on falsifiability as it is on verifiability. If hypotheses can not be falsified, they are of little use. For example, I can hypothesize that a rock I picked up keeps away tigers. There are no tigers in my city. Do I now have the right to claim my hypotheses about my rock is valid? There are no tigers around for me to test the hypothesis, and according to my hypothesis there never will be (since the rock prevents it), so I can now claim victory? My hypothesis about my tiger rock is valid?

Falsifiability also applies to statements of fact such as "arbitrary person performed arbitrary act". If no tests exist to falsify this statement, no conclusion can be drawn as to the statement's conformity with observable reality. In short, it's crap. If you don't think your "good edit" crap notions (note, not all accepted notions are crap, but some clearly are) can stand challenges, the best course of action is to prevent challenges. Which is exactly what kneejerk reversion does.

The page histories are the only fossils left behind to tell the tale. And more often than not that tale is colored by glib remarks disguised as debate. - Plautus

Plautus, please stop deleting information from this page. You're not the arbitrator of right and wrong, your constant revisionist tactics are tiring and futile, you can't just erase the thoughts and words of people that don't agree with you. - SheikYerBooty 17:06, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)~

Sheikyerbooty, go peddle this nonsense anywhere. I did not delete information, I moved it to its proper home. I took comments about my conduct and moved them to the talk page with my name on it. Now stop this idiocy. You and I both know I erased nothing, but merely moved information to a page where it was on-topic instead of tangental. This is a common practice on wikipedia, why are you suggesting otherwise? Cease these futile attacks on me, Sheikyerbooty. - Plautus satire 17:32, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sheikyerbooty, here, once again, is what I posted above in an attempt to get Raul654 to remove his off-topic posts from this page:

"If you care to discuss my conduct or responses to that conduct, I suggest you use the Plautus satire "talk" page. - Plautus[emphasis added - PS]"

I now give you the same advice. I you wish to discuss page reversion, this is the place. If you wish to discuss my conduct, my talk page is the place. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Once a suitable amount of time has passed I will also delete your personal comments, particularly your lies that I deleted information that clearly I moved to a more appropriate venue instead. Plautus satire 17:32, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To save others the trouble of looking up the page histories, here are what you removed (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_talk:How_to_revert_a_page_to_an_earlier_version&diff=2413080&oldid=2412944) from here and what you put on your talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Plautus_satire&diff=2412981&oldid=2412934). Jamesday 11:55, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Comments on Users

User:Platus satire and Requests for comment

User:Plautus_satire has edited this page alleging that isotropy implies a geocentric universe.

Please take note of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Plautus_satire.

Also please note that Plautus_satire has stated that "many quasars are caused by magnetized plasmas around ordinary stars" and "Electromagnetic forces propagate farther (field strength varies inversely with distance) that gravitational forces (field strength varies inversely with the SQUARE OF THE distance)." in Talk:Black_hole, though he later deleted his own comments and those of many other users is a flurry of dozens of edits from top to bottom in that talk page, completely altering that talk page beyond recognition. Curps 16:43, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Link to Requests for Comment on Plautus Satire

Everyone please take note of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Plautus_satire
Curps 17:45, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Curps, you seem to have a personal vendetta for Plautus_satire. JDR

That's what Plautus would have you believe. In this case, it's simply a small group of people in the community who are unwilling to let Plautus go from article to article vandalizing them (the "gang" who are out to get him, as he says). He's already driving Evercat and Finlay into Wikivaction. He has explicetely[sic - Did you mean "explicitly"? Hope this helps. - Plautus satire 18:12, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)] rejected the idea of NPOV, and his edits show it. In short, he is unwilling to live by the same rules as the rest of us, so everywhere on Wikipedia he goes he's going to have people watching him to keep him honest. →Raul654 18:08, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

We see once again Curps and Raul654 are trying to disrupt my use of wikipedia and insert their extraneous personal agenda wherever they find the slightest hint of possible plausible deniability. - Plautus satire 18:11, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's funny - a quick look at the RFC page shows that a lot of people (18 votes to ban you, 2 not to - 90% in favor) think you are the one disrupting life here. Why don't you just leave? →Raul654 18:14, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Minor factual correction. The page has twenty-six votes, eighteen of which support banning me. Unless my math is wildly off, I think that's about a two thirds majority. Eight of these do not support banning me. In some cases votes were withdrawn after your attempts to browbeat "ban votes" out of people. - Plautus satire 18:19, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I feel your continued discussion of this topic on this talk page is inappropriate. Perhaps you would like to clip this section and add it to the bottom of my requests for comment page. - Plautus satire 18:17, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No vendettas please

If you guys have a personal problem, go outside and settle it, will ya? This page is for discussion about improving the article.

The next one who makes a personal remark here goes on Uncle Ed's Naughty List. Don't say you weren't warned! --Uncle Ed 18:20, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Finally a voice of reason! Thank you Ed! I hope characterizing your voice as reasonable is not too personal. :D - Plautus satire 18:22, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Relax, the rule doesn't apply to remarks made about ME. I'm indestructible, like Bruce Willis ;-) --Uncle Ed 18:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In that case, I feel many (though not I) would say you are reasonable, to a fault. - Plautus satire 18:32, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

ads/.

You don't know what you're talking about

Peer review would be useless in mathematics, as the proof is on the page, so to speak. There is no need to consult history (or "accepted" notions, which peer review does compare "new" ideas to as a basis for their validity) when "refereeing" a statistics or mathematics paper.

This is idiotic nonsense. I have refereed papers for five mathematics journals, and my published papers have been refereed (and some unpublished ones that I submitted). Obviously history is consulted; obviously proof-checking is not the main point of refereeing; obviously novel ideas are examined in the context of accepted notions. To say that mathematics is not a science but a "language" ignores the fact that hundreds of journals are devoted to publishing new discoveries in mathematics. Obviously in judging publication-worthiness one considers how new discoveries may be relevant to potential future research; one considers esthetics (which for most mathematicians is the main motive for doing mathematics or for learning mathematics). Where did you get this loony idea that there is no need to consult history? Do you not see sections on how a new discovery fits into the historical development of the subject in many research papers in mathematics?

Your comments are those of a crackpot. Michael Hardy 21:58, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

• Image:Doctor-0000.jpg

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 05:31, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.