User talk:Deacon Vorbis

Overwrote your reversion

I was finishing an edit of the natural logarithm article when you reverted it. In as much as I have a math Ph.D., and have retired from 20 years as an applied mathematician, I feel reasonably comfortable that you are quite mistaken: None of my changes were "wrong", although a few (such as converting from <sub> ... to {{sub|) may well not strictly be necessary, they were where I was editing formulae anyway; the {{nowrap| template for excessively large numbers of   codes is arguably an improvement in readability of the wikification of the presented text.

Since I overrode your reversion, you might want to go back and do it again, or instead, skim through the article by actually looking at the results instead of the changes page, before you decide to go ahead.107.242.121.22 (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars

I had my doubts about linking "scientific" to the science article in the flat earth article and did so reluctantly. If you cared to waste a moment looking at my relatively scant editing history, you would see that one of the things I regularly do is eliminate annoying links to subjects of common knowledge. As I suggested in my edit summary, I would normally never think of linking to "science" or "fact" and would, like you in this case, normally delete such links. So I don't have a problem with scientific > science's being unlinked (especially since the words aren't identical, though that perhaps shouldn't matter), but part of me would still like to see a link to "fact" in this particular case. You are quite right that it gives no actual aid to the average reader, and to tell the truth it was added with a somewhat humorous intent. I was a bit surprised to find an article on "fact", but seeing that it existed I felt that the flat-earth article was among the most appropriate imaginable to link to it, if any WP article was to do so. A kind of a dig, you know. You probably see what I mean, but if you still object to a link to "fact", I'm not going to make a federal case out of it.

Especially since I have a favor to ask of you. Sometime not too long ago I saw someone called Deborah Tavares on YouTube recommending that people read a document titled "Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars". I found and read the document (best Internet copy at https://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/index.shtml), but could make no sense of its technicalities and knew no one who could advise me in their regard. I have just now found a seemingly plausible explanation of the genesis of the document at https://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Letters_from_the_Author_of_Silent_Weapons_for_Quiet_Wars.html, though it remains somewhat mysterious and I still haven't received any confirmation of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of its diagrams. If I can entice you into having a look at it, could you please enlighten me to some degree on this? Thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The first half of this should really be on the talk page, but if you really think it should be linked, then go ahead and reinstate it; I won't object further. As for the second half, about all I can say is: ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm wut?

(1) Thanks. (2) That's what I was asking you. I'm pretty sure the diagrams make some sense to somebody, as it's difficult for me to imagine something like that's having been simply fantasized out of nothing. But maybe this isn't your line either. –Roy McCoy (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Squarefree

I'm OK about the revert in Squarefree. Is there a term for non-squarefree integers? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I found this:

• http://oeis.org/wiki/Squarefull_numbers
  • squarefull: every prime factor is at least squared

• http://oeis.org/wiki/Squareful_numbers
  • Squareful: not squarefree

Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Painting reversion

Hi, how are you. Just wanted to check with you. The painting of madhava is based on original research, era etc...it was commissioned as there has been since demand. Also there is a request for an image on the talk page etc... This image also conforms to the wikipedia licence.

If you have any queries we could discuss in the talk section. Thanks Imagetoimageless (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)