user talk:silly rabbit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:99.150.113.218

Cute bunny on your talk page!! I got a message from this anon user. I thought this was vandalism when he/she deleted a bunch of links and I reversed them all. I'm a contributer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Lutheranism and when an anon user just reverses a bunch of links like that I freak out and reverse them back. I don't like edit wars so I'm just going to let it go and what ever happens, happens. I saw your message on the talk page User talk:99.150.113.218. I don't know if you are an admin or not but I thought you would like to know. Regards --Npnunda (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] bv sequences

Hello, I am Daniele Tampieri: thank you very much for the section you added to the Bounded variation voice. I have reworked it a bit (just repaired a broken link and titled bv sequences instead of simply bv): I also will open a stub about Lamberto Cesari which has important influences on both US and Italian mathematics: so that red link will be no more red. Daniele.tampieri (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning an image

In this image it seems less than conspicuous that the line through the center of projection O that is orthogonal to the plane actually passes through the center of the sphere. There are some fairly simple ways one could call attention to that fact. One would be by actually showing that line and indicating the right angle graphically where it meets the plane. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Now you're talking

If all you wanted me to do was remove the insult from that topic, why didn't you tell me straight up instead of going sideways trying to archive the topic and accusing me of personally attacking you? I'll remove the insult and you stop archiving it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.136.219 (talk) 03:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Groups

Hi Silly rabbit,

from the exterior algebra article you wrote, I draw the conclusion that you are somebody I could ask for the following: it seems that everybody from the math guy's panel is busy or whatever, and cannot respond to my peer review request of groups. If you have some time, would you be so kind to have a look? I'd be grateful. I have tried to cover earlier concerns raised by Geometryguy in the GA-process (about applications and history), so I hope the article has made a substantial leap forward since. Group theory is also slowly growing to a more mature presentation, but the articles should be assessed independently.

Thank you, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image blacklist

Fixed. I thought I'd changed that link before, but didn't notice there are multiple micropenis images listed there. Hut 8.5 11:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please describe the reason for rollback

What is so awful about this rendering that you had to roll it back?

--Yecril (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Silly rabbit — \frac is much nicer than the solidus for derivatives in non-inlined equations, and is much more common if you look at differential-equation textbooks. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The hypothesis that Silly rabbit did not like the fractions in stand-alone equations is not very convincing. He did not use the word "fractions" in the comment and he just nuked everything (as opposed to reverting just the "offending" changes that would have been very easy to remove selectively because I just commented out the original math). Also, please note that Wikipedia is not a textbook and textbook conventions need not apply. --157.25.5.68 (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not how it renders in my browser, and it looks much nicer as an inline PNG. The WP:MOSMATH makes specific allowances that formulas may be rendered as PNG, and I see nothing wrong with this. If you want to make a sweeping change to the manual of style, then you may do so on the MOSMATH talk page. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a textbook, but it uses standard notations and math typography. (Introducing new notations would verge on original research.) And textbooks are a good reference to compare to for determining what notations are most common. (Just because Wikipedia is not X does not mean that it does not base its material on X'. Wikipedia is not a reputable source, but that doesn't mean that we don't cite other reputable sources, and in fact it is our stated policy to base Wikipedia content on reputable sources. Do you see the problem with your logic?) —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for undoing the vandalism on my page! Jonni Boi 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)