Changes

:*It's necessary to be aware of the distinction between the concept and the numeral or symbol that represents it.  The now-deleted article was, quite properly, about the concept of two, stating that it is 1+1.  But your proposed category was about the Arabic symbol "2".  Being clear on the distinction is important for a web site that goes to great lengths to discuss arithmetical concepts vs. symbolic representations, and has, for example, articles about binary and hexadecimal.

:*It's necessary to be aware of the distinction between the concept and the numeral or symbol that represents it.  The now-deleted article was, quite properly, about the concept of two, stating that it is 1+1.  But your proposed category was about the Arabic symbol "2".  Being clear on the distinction is important for a web site that goes to great lengths to discuss arithmetical concepts vs. symbolic representations, and has, for example, articles about binary and hexadecimal.

:*I wanted to give you some background of the issue.  (As you've noticed, I enjoy telling you about the history of math/science writing at Conservapedia.)  Several years ago there was a wide-ranging debate about the level of math/science articles, with Ed Poor taking the a fairly extreme position that we needed a lot more material on the very elementary stuff before going on to things like algebra.  He even said at one point that we should have an article on how to count to 10 before anyone could write about higher level stuff.  Like algebra or calculus, which I'm sure you know we have many articles on.  Well, someone took him up on that, and wrote an article on the numbers from 1 to 10.  Complete with pronunciation guides!  He was trolling, he got blocked, and the article was deleted.  So user U.U had no idea he was innocently wandering into that territory.  While I was appalled at Ed's position, I didn't jump into the "count to 10" debate.  This was one of the very few debates with Ed that I did not participate in.  I just watched from the sidelines.  But writing about math and science was very difficult back when Ed was around, though we did eventually manage to become friends, as in the Augusta Ada material.

:*I wanted to give you some background of the issue.  (As you've noticed, I enjoy telling you about the history of math/science writing at Conservapedia.)  Several years ago there was a wide-ranging debate about the level of math/science articles, with Ed Poor taking the a fairly extreme position that we needed a lot more material on the very elementary stuff before going on to things like algebra.  He even said at one point that we should have an article on how to count to 10 before anyone could write about higher level stuff.  Like algebra or calculus, which I'm sure you know we have many articles on.  Well, someone took him up on that, and wrote an article on the numbers from 1 to 10.  Complete with pronunciation guides!  He was trolling, he got blocked, and the article was deleted.  So user U.U had no idea he was innocently wandering into that territory.  While I was appalled at Ed's position, I didn't jump into the "count to 10" debate.  This was one of the very few debates with Ed that I did not participate in.  I just watched from the sidelines.  But writing about math and science was very difficult back when Ed was around, though we did eventually manage to become friends, as in the Augusta Ada material.

:*Anyone who doesn't know how to count to 10 (a) needs his diapers changed, and (b) shouldn't be reading an web site full of adult content.

:*Anyone who doesn't know how to count to 10 (a) needs his diapers changed, and (b) shouldn't be reading a web site full of adult content.

:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:39, 14 June 2016 (EDT)

:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:39, 14 June 2016 (EDT)