User talk:Paolo.dL/Generic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Generic

This archive contains personal messages which are not related to the content of my open letter.

Paolo.dL 11:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents

Request for edit summary

It would be nice if you could use the edit summary more often, it helps others understand what you do. Thanks. You can reply here if you have comments. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I am aware of the importance of the edit summary. I apologize for forgetting too often. Paolo.dL 09:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Integral

Hi, Paolo!

I have reinserted the material (fundamental theorem of calculus) you recently deleted from this article. My reasoning is that this section of the article was inserted after a number of editors had discussed the issue at length, and had decided that this is important information that should be included. In other words, your judgment runs counter to the consensus of interested editors.

Quite a few people have put a lot of time and effort into this article. If you want to make major changes to the article – and especially if you want to delete whole sections of it – it would probably be a good idea to propose the changes you want to make on the talk page and see what other editors think before just popping your changes in there.

Thank you. Have a great day! DavidCBryant 20:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for writing back, Paolo. I put my response on my talk page. DavidCBryant 12:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a UI bug (?)

Although as others have said there was some newbie biting and irrational assuming of bad faith going on here, Matthews deliberately chose to block just your username and not your IP - both features are provided by the Mediawiki interface and it doesn't make sense to attribute this to a UI bug. We tend to err on the conservative side of not blocking entire IPs because other users might be using them and we don't want to block others inadvertently. Your action of creating a new account was not unreasonable - or even against the rules - if it was not used to continue the disruptive action. Dcoetzee 00:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The bug I described is completely different from the non-bug you described. I have never suggested nor implied that Matthews should have blocked my IP, but that MediaWiki should have blocked automatically my new user account created from my blocked IP! :-)
I will soon archive this section. I don't want this letter to become too long. I consider misinterpretations and ensuing explanations to be personal messages, which other readers are obviously not interested to see. Thanks anyway for sharing your opinion. Regards, Paolo.dL 21:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, my mistake - I didn't think it was possible to even create any user account from a blocked IP. Thanks for your response. Dcoetzee 04:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring

I have deleted some sentences that really were not needed, as a form of mild refactoring to enhance readability. I understand now the reason why you explained the concepts of injection, surjection and bijection in such detail! You probably thought I was stupid and you had a good reason for believing it! :-) But these explanations of elementary concepts make the discussion too long and I am sure none of the readers or contributors to this discussion need them. Consider that we have very nice articles on Wikipedia about these concepts. I think that now your main and more interesting points became more visible. If you don't like the idea, please just undo my refactoring, or restore your sentences in a separate subsection called, for instance, "Definitions of injection, surjection and bijection". Otherwise, please just delete this sentence and start a new section about our first step. Thanks, Paolo.dL 20:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC) (from Talk:Inverse function).

Yes, I'm perfectly happy with your refactoring, though I added a short warning note at the point that the material was removed. The long explanation was just intended to clear up the miscommunication that we seemed to be having.
By the way, I've taught enough math classes and talked to enough people outside of my area to know the difference between stupidity and simple confusion. My current impression of you is:
  1. You are obviously quite smart.
  2. You can be somewhat stubborn, probably because you are used to being right about things.
  3. You care a lot about making this article more coherent.
I would venture to say that I have the same three qualities. ;-) Jim 21:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your kinds words. Yes, I agree, I guess you are very smart, stubborn and constructive as well, and a good mathematician, but we use our mind in different ways. We will probably be able to do a good job together, and with the help of KSmrq, which is one of the best writers in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, in my opinion! Paolo.dL 21:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comments at Talk:Function (mathematics)

Hi Paolo, I am very disappointed in you after the recent comments you left there. If you step back and reread them in a disinterested way, you will see that they constitute a personal attack against another editor, Ksmrq. I am aware that the two of you have had disagreements in the past. I can even see how you may feel vindicated by his adopting some of your ideas and incorporating them into his edits. But I draw diametrically opposite conclusions from that: far from being dismissive of you, Ksmrq patiently worked to adopt some of your proposals, in spite of himself (that requires quite a bit of grace!); by contrast, you appear to use Ksmrq's good will as an opportunity to mock him and instead of using this opening to re-establish good faith and resume much needed joint work on improving the article, you just childishly revel in crowing "I told you so". This is very obnoxious of you and will likely result in people refusing to listen to your suggestions in the future, even if they be made in good faith.

I believed for a while that you were polite and interested in bringing Wikipedia articles up to higher standards, but maybe I should reconsider now. In any case, take my advice and remove or cross out your uncivil comments. Best, Arcfrk 00:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in that indeed, but I can't give my contribution if KSmrq keeps behaving as the owner of the articles related with mathematics. Please see my complete answer on User talk:Arcfrk. Paolo.dL 11:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)