# User talk:PatrickD

Welcome!

Hello, PatrickD, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

--Jpatt 23:38, 9 July 2009 (EDT)

A belated welcome--Jpatt 23:38, 9 July 2009 (EDT)

Thanks, and thanks for your note about math level. I'd say that, on the EMHA (elementary/middle/high-school/advanced) scale, you are an M-level reader. The articles I was asking about (curl and divergence) are probably H-level. Though they don't have templates; I will fix that.

I would say that evaluating the accuracy of math/science articles, even up to A-level, shouldn't be a problem---we have some A-level people around. Just from looking at recent contributions, they include me, MarkGall, LemonPeel, JacobB, ChuckK, and probably others.

If you see an E or M level article that you think isn't right, say so. On the article's talk page, or my talk page, or .... you know what to do. If you see an H-level article that you think goes too fast, also say so.

I will look at curl and divergence. I think the direction they are going, while technically correct, isn't what H-level is suposed to be doing. PatrickD 22:38, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

## Thanks

Thanks for your help,man! The "%26" thing didn't work,so I had to make it Love and War,but thanks anyway!! --DevenG 17:22, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

## RoyL Question

He was banned from this site on July 13th. You can revert or make corrections to curl and divergence as you see fit.--Jpatt 00:46, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

WHAT????? What is going on? I've looked at his contributions, and they are all good. Math experts of his caliber, and who are willing to donate their time and expertise to this project, are not easy to come by. There is a lot of work that needs to be done, and very few people willing and able to do it---I'm sure you know that. We need him, for divergence/curl, and many other things. Please reverse this action and send him an email asking him to come back. PatrickD 21:42, 24 July 2009 (EDT)

Sorry, I didn't block him. He broke the rules by using multiple accounts. --Jpatt 22:04, 24 July 2009 (EDT)

## Page creation...

Do not re-create the pages of previously blocked users/persona's without Admin permission. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 15:16, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

OK. I figured out what you must be referring to. I can assure you I have absolutely no interest in re-creating deleted subpages of deleted user pages of banned users. I am putting everything in the mainspace, where it belongs.

Oh, and thanks for the better picture on the Boston article. That church is as awesome inside as it is outside. PatrickD 22:38, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

Thanks, no problem, it was an odd picture to represent Boston, if you find one better, just let me know. That template, I liked the concept if not the formula, BTW. ;-) --ṬK/Admin/Talk 22:24, 17 July 2009 (EDT)
Actually, Bostonians are somewhat proud of their juxtaposition of the very old and the very new. Trinity happens to be very close to the all-glass Hancock tower (too close, in fact, construction of Hancock threatened to damage Trinity.) If I get into Boston, which isn't very common, since I live some distance away, I'll see if I can take a picture that juxtaposes the two in a striking way.
Template: Are you saying you like the idea of the templates but not the chosen format, with an illustrative equation on the left and the text on the right? Or you like the format, but not that particular equation? I like the format, and I think the first 3 equations (E, M, and H) are fine, but I think the "A" equation is over the top. In any case, do you want me to come up with another "H" equation, preferably one that doesn't use primes, so I'll stop grousing about it? PatrickD 23:59, 17 July 2009 (EDT)
It was just that particular one.....is all. I'll ask Ed Poor to take a gander as well....but demonstrations are always better than text for most things, I think. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 04:13, 18 July 2009 (EDT)
OK, here are some suggested replacement templates for H and A. I'm not sure whether "that one" meant H or A. For reference, here are the existing E, M, H, and A:
 x + 3 = 7 x = ? This article/section deals with mathematical concepts appropriate for a student in early high school.
 x2 − 5x + 6 = 0 x = ? This article/section deals with mathematical concepts appropriate for a student in mid to late high school.
 $\frac{d}{dx} \sin x=?\,$ This article/section deals with mathematical concepts appropriate for a student in late high school or early university.
 $\pi_1(S^1)=?\,$ This article/section deals with mathematical concepts appropriate for a student in late university or graduate level.
I think some elementary calculus formula, like the derivative of the sine, is the right thing for H. So here's one suggestion that just gets rid of the invisible prime character:
 $\frac{d}{dx} \sin x=?\,$ This article/section deals with mathematical concepts appropriate for a student in late high school or early university.
Another one that would be good for H, at about the same educational level, would involve series:
 $\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{x^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}=?\,$ This article/section deals with mathematical concepts appropriate for a student in late high school or early university.
I think the existing A template is overboard. It refers to a conjecture that has never been proven! Here's a replacement that I think is appropriate, based on MarkGall's work on the fundamental group:
 $\pi_1(S^1)=?\,$ This article/section deals with mathematical concept appropriate for a student in late university or graduate level.

PatrickD 23:53, 19 July 2009 (EDT)

I like your suggestions. The current A template, over the top or not, misstates the Riemann hypothesis anyway, so I think it certainly needs to be changed: the sum
 ∑ n − s n
converges only on the half-plane Res > 1, and it's fairly easy to show that there are no zeroes in this region. So the problem posed in the template has no solutions, and there's nothing too hard about it. The Riemann hypothesis asks one to analytically continue the function defined by this sum to $\mathbb C \setminus \{1\}$ and look for the zeroes of the continuation.
If we do want to keep the A template as an open question, we can just tweak your suggestion to πm(Sn) = ?. There's an article already about higher homotopy groups, though not a very good one. --MarkGall 17:47, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

## vacation

I'm going into semi-retirement. I may want to come back later, but, for now, editing math articles is like tending a flower garden during a nuclear war. I do not know whether RoyL's edits to the divergence and curl articles are an improvement. I've thought about this issue, and can't make up my mind. And RoyL has been banned. There's no one to talk to. Furthermore, I could be IP blocked at any moment. Not knowing whether today is going to be the day that I die is too stressful.

Please do something about the math level templates (see above.) Only sysops can edit these. PatrickD 14:47, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

Without you contacting one of the Admins directly, it is folly to assume any of us are following the conversation here regularly, therefore we aren't privy to your thinking, Patrick. The last time I read your page was just after the suggestions above were made. If you want them used, instead of what is there, all you have to do is either post on my talk page or use the "send email" feature and explain what it is you want to do. If you prefer (and I can't say that I blame you!) of conversing with someone with match knowledge, you could always ask User:RSchlafly for his opinion, he is more than qualified to discuss any level of math.
As for RoyL, I never heard a word from him, so I assume he was indeed socking it up and creating another user account. If a good contributor here (like yourself, Patrick) is IP blocked, they need to contact the Administrator who did the block, because they can be exempted from the IP range block. Perhaps I was completely wrong in my thinking, as were the other Admins, in assuming someone caught up in such a "Catch-22" situation would automatically contact us about it. Indeed, you expressing a worry about being caught up in that, seems to take the perhaps out of it. If there is something you would like me to move, replace or edit, let me know. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:49, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

I agree that Roger is an excellent source for mathematical material, but I have two reservations. First, "It's the principle of the thing." I hate that phrase as much as anyone. But you seem to be saying that my needs to have someone to talk to can be met by talking to him alone. Presumably because, being Andy's brother, he is immune from being blocked. But I want to talk to the whole community of math contributors. There are a lot of hard-working, conscientious, well-qualified contributors, willing to donate their time and expertise to this project. Second, Roger is not actually very active in this area. Perhaps he should be, but he isn't. Almost all contributions to math articles were made by us peons. Could Roger have stepped into the curl and divergence pages and done a better job than RoyL? Probably. Could he have stepped into the real analysis page and done a better job than me? Probably. Could he have stepped into the homotopy page and done a better job than MarkGall? Probably. But he didn't do any of these things.

Now there's something else about the RoyL situation that I find troubling. You say "I never heard a word from him, so I assume he was indeed socking it up". You assumed? You didn't know for sure? Looking through the block log, your block comments seem to indicate that you know what you are doing, and never (well, hardly ever) make mistakes. And now you say that you did a block that you weren't sure of, and looked to his response or non-response as corroborating evidence.

I think people are a lot more easily frightened away than you may realize. It's possible that RoyL and RogerS simply gave up. Furthermore you might consider the possibility that multiple different people might live in the same household, and each have accounts, without being "meatpuppets" of each other. RoyL's edits all seem to me to be perfectly responsible and reasonable, and almost entirely on mathematical or scientific subjects. RogerS's edits also seem to be responsible and reasonable, though perhaps on more controversial topics. So ask yourself this: Why on Earth would one person create two "sockpuppet" accounts, or two people working in concert create two "meatpuppet" accounts, at the same time? What abuse of Conservapedia's principles could they possibly have been trying to perpetrate? Sockpuppet accounts, so called, are created for the purpose of evading a block for cause. If RogerS had made offensive edits and gotten blocked, and RoyL had appeared the next day from the same IP address making similar edits, that would be a fairly clear case of sockpuppetry. But in this case there's a much more benign explanation. Blocking them, and then taking their silence as a confession of guilt, was the wrong thing. You could have asked them.

I wanted to contact RoyL by email, but his user page and talk page were deleted. He may not have enabled mail anyway.

I will try to be less easily frightened in the future.  :-) And, if an accident occurs, I will try to be proactive about using mail. PatrickD 21:44, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

## "Keeping a low profile"

What's this about? You think anyone can generate millions of web hits writing about imaginary numbers?! And you call me an "obvious parodist"? Get real. If you think that my edits explaining why there are no real solutions to the equation x2 + 1 = 0 are wrong, just correct them or say so. Or if you're really opposed to the Conservative Mathematics Project, please just man up, say so, and explain why, rather than slinking around "keeping a low profile". SRFoster 19:41, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

## Oops, thanks!

Oops in mathematics, thanks for correcting my mistake!--Andy Schlafly 21:48, 6 November 2009 (EST)