This page 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. |
If you look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, allowing another section by the original creator of the RFC is allowed and in fact one of the suggested headings is even called "inside view". In addition, you should be wary of antagonizing Perusnarpk unnecessarily. You are in the right here, so there is no need to be overly aggressive about all this. More admins have weighed in on this issue, and I'm sure this will all be resolved soon. --C S (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Although my distress was not quite as dramatic, I still appreciate your rising to my defense. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any thoughts on selecting a different notation for spaces of sections in Differential geometry of surfaces? I notice that you are using to refer to the space of sections of the vector bundle E, and to refer to the space of smooth functions on P with values in V. I think the section might be clearer if you were to choose a notation that more clearly distinguishes between these two cases, perhaps for the space of sections (although there is perhaps some slight risk of ambiguity even with this notation). Some authors use a script E for spaces of smooth sections, but the mathscr font is not available on Wikipedia. Some people use Γ, although that should perhaps be reserved for sheaves. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading Image:Liebracket.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
To continue with the discussion at user talk:Silly rabbit, I wanted to mention that one of the books you mentioned, namely Lawson and Michelsohn, calls the Levi-Civita connection "the canonical riemannian connection" on page 112, as opposed to riemannian connection defined on page 103 for an arbitrary bundle, for which torsion is not defined in general. Thus their usage is inconsistent with your proposal, namely calling the torsion free connection, the riemannian connection (as opposed to Levi-Civita).
I agree that there are many, many books on Riemannian geometry on the market. When I singled out the three books that I mentioned, I had in mind classic books whose updated editions have recently come out, proving that they are trend-setters in the sense that more people read them than other books. The book by Cheeger and Ebin that you mentioned is a great classic and both authors are my personal friends, but its recent re-issue does not contain any updates. Katzmik (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I have a somewhat peripheral question. If you would care to elaborate on the "slight mess" that you refer to, I can try to fix it. As one of the three editors (together with User:Geometry guy and User:Fropuff) responsible for writing the connection articles, I might be able to do things quickly and consistently. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I am in transit and may not reply immediately but would appreciate it, slrubenstein at yahoo dot com. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed this, and I apologize immediately for it. I wasn't even aware I'd reverted your edit until someone had reverted mine, and I'm embarrassed that I pressed the wrong button. Again, I apologize for that: I have several tabs open at the moment, and was most likely going too fast. Very, very sorry. Acalamari 23:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I am in transit and have spotty access to internet but I think that Phelgm bbears real investigation by other admins. Look at the history of his user page - it first comes into existence with a long list of articles he has deleted. His talk page is largely protests about his threats of deletion. Is he even an admin? Can he delete? At best this is a case of an extreme deletionist, at worst, there is something fishy going on and I think it would helpo for some other admins to check him out. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Although your reply to Elonka's answer is almost certainly on point, I deleted it, as the page is reserved to give Elonka a chance to answer questions. I think that should probably go in as another point at the RfC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason that anyone should have to be reminding you about this again - especially in relation to Elonka, you've been cautioned a number of times about refraining from personal attacks. Insulting someone's intelligence is completely inappropriate, much less actually calling another editor "stupid" [1]. Remember that personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia, so please try to find a more civil way to present your viewpoints. Shell babelfish 00:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to thank you for your tremendous contribution to differential geometry of surfaces and other geometry articles, and the many hours you must have spent on this. The fact of a small disagreement over a minor issue should not prevent people from working together. Katzmik (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Your current revision at differential geometry of surfaces is fine, except that I think it should mention explicitly that it is only in the case of surfaces that one can recapture the connection from the knowledge of the geodesics. Since after all this is an article about surfaces, their special features should be acknowledged explicitly. Katzmik (talk) 10:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Please. Don't write
when you mean
Michael Hardy (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed some rather surprising assertions from this article -- it occurred to me that you might be in a position to check whether they could possibly be true. Is he still alive, do you know? Richard Pinch (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
A user can sometimes feel cornered on their own talk page. If you have an issue, you might use a noticeboard instead, and let uninvolved parties figure out what if anything needs to be done. I think users should be able to talk about Wikipedia to their professional groups and act as informal ambassadors. Unless there are incidents of outsiders being recruited to aid in edit wars or otherwise skew consensus, I think the community is likely to support activities that encourage participation and quality content creation. Jehochman Talk 22:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
This page 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. |