User talk:Floorsheim

Thanks. These holomovement articles are very discouraging. Also have a look at the history of Many-worlds interpretation. The article is OK now, although I had to negotiate by leaving a link to holomovement.CSTAR 02:30, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this new article is an enormous improvement. The previous holomovement article was worthless (IMHO).CSTAR 15:18, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

What happened to the redirect?CSTAR 04:15, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just an FYI for you, from Rex071404 16:47, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC):

Neutrality was admonished recently for moving evidence that was not his from an Arbitration page to a discussion (talk page). He did this twice! And when reported to Arbitrator Fred Bauder by me (the victim of his actions), Neutrality was admonsihed by thusly:

"User:Rex071404 is permitted in his section of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence to make whatever he feels is an appropriate statement or presentation of evidence. He is a full participant in the arbitration. (A status you have granted him by filing a complaint against him.). He is entitled to present his views, provided they are in a clearly marked separate section, in whatever form he choses. Moving his statements to the talk page is highly inappropriate. Fred Bauder 12:14, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)"

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Neutrality"

---

Please go here, ASAP and vote.

Rex071404 07:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here [2]

Rex071404 15:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I my limited exposure to "redirects", I have seen potential for misuse. However, I am not in any way suggesting that here.

Even so, since Holomovement issue is complex, please tell me in brief your (3) best reasons why I should support your desired redirect.

I will give the matter my full attention as soon as you provide the three reasons.

Rex071404 16:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not really the best person to help on something like this. All I can suggest is that you move the inappropriate parts of the article to the talk page and ask for sources to be given before it is replaced. This will ensure the content is real, and not one person's POV. Have a look at Talk:Time Cube and Talk:Reciprocal System of Theory for similar problems with people defending their own POV on their pet theories. Perhaps you could leave a note on those talk pages suggesting that the people involved there look at the Holomovement issue. Don't let it stress you too much, and try not to resort to calling people crazy, even if they are. Angela. 16:41, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you do the redirect, but also perhaps, have concise sub-section summarizing the "Holomovement" concept, so as to pacify the guardians of the current page?

Rex071404 22:58, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Due to limited formal education on these concepts, I am not sure why it's important that a "Holomovement" page as currently comprised, is bad for the general welfare of the readers.

Rex071404 00:37, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Let X be uncountable. The space

${\displaystyle \ell ^{2}(X)}$

of complex-valued sequences φ such that

${\displaystyle \sum _{x\in X}|\phi (x)|^{2}<\infty }$

is non-separable. Most Hilbert spaces that arise in analysis and geometry are separable, but non-separable ones are sometimes unavoidable.CSTAR 23:58, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, most spaces which occur in Analysis are separable. However, in some sense, non-separable ones are unnavoidable. For insatnce, the the algebra of all operators on a separable infinite dimensional space has naturally occurring irreducible representations on non-separable spaces.CSTAR 21:03, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How do show the family

${\displaystyle M_{\alpha }:U\rightarrow S_{\alpha }}$

exists which satisfies your conditions? It boils down to the same question.CSTAR 22:29, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you think about the problem procedurally, then how do you write a procedure that actually "picks" an element from a set? Note that most mathematicians don't worry about this problem (or even regard it as a problem). But this is something that you cannot ignore if you try to think carefully about the nature of mathematics. What does it mean to say that a solution to a problem exists? In what way does it exist -- or naively where does it exist? If you think of it the problem procedurally, you have a systematic way of providing an answer. Otherwise, you may end up mired in other more idealist (in the sense of philosophical idealism) answers. These aren't necessarilly bad, but they're harder and you thus provide material demand for a not very socially useful academic industry. I myself use the Axiom of Choice shamelessly. CSTAR 17:35, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Even after Riemann's conjecture is proved, the fact that some theorem has a proof not using it is important" I disagree. If the Riemann hypothesis is true, assuming its negation is a contradiction; and anything follows from a contradiction. Also, if Riemann's conjecture is true, assuming it to be true is a tautology; and anything that follows from a tautology is, itself, a tautology. It would definitely be interesting, though, to see a proof of the theorem you referenced that didn't go along the lines of A٨¬A → {A, ¬A} → {A٧B, ¬A} → B, but it wouldn't establish anything unknown. –Floorsheim 21:37, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"A proof not using the Riemann hypothesis" is not at all the same thing as "a proof using the negation of the Riemann hypothesis." Suppose A has a short simple proof using the Riemann hypothesis, and a short simple proof not using the Riemann hypothesis. If the Riemann hypothesis is hard to prove (as appears to be the case), then wouldn't the short simple proof of A not using the Riemann hypothesis make the proof of A accessible to those who haven't worked through the proof of the Riemann hypothesis? And might it not be important for that reason? Michael Hardy 17:17, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A similar fact that is true for compact groups, BTW. Every compact group can be separated by finiote dimensional ones. Incidentally the left regular representation contains each irreducible representation of dimension n, n times.CSTAR 15:28, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have been working on a substantially new version of the article, incorporating the great examples but attempting to elucidate the core features of Bohm's views. Any objections? Let me know Stephenhumphry 05:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brookie here - thanks for the note re the swans - good picture isn't it! I took this about 10 years ago and this was scanned in using a high resolution scanner. I can email you the larger photo as scanned if that will help. Kind regards :) The curate's egg 12:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was clearing out Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Pennsylvania. I added this template to your page. Feel free to remove it, and thanks for understanding. --evrik 04:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there!

I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:

• Contact us on IRC at #wikimedia-pa
• Join our mailing list
• Visit our blog at http://wmfpa.blogspot.com

Thanks and I hope you join up! Cbrown1023 talk 03:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the time to go to Hugh Hefner's talkpage [3] and respond to the request for comment on what jerrygraf is trying to add that does not belong on Hugh Hefner's page, but belongs on PEI's, as well as the part I deleted is ment as a "controversial comment on the biography of a living person"Rogue Gremlin 04:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have previously shown an interest in the Barack Obama article. Please state on the Talk page of the Barack Obama article whether you Support or Oppose Scjessey's version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama#Let.27s_see_whether_you_really_have_a_.22new_consensus.22_.28version_2.29

Thank you. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments were very well put at Talk:Barack Obama. I think someone should post to various boards to get more comment from other editors, since the current small group is not producing a consensus after long discussion (too long on my part, I know). I'm not sure how to word the request though. Any suggestions? I was going to ask for more comment from editors just about my suggestion for a change in the wording of the Ayers sentence, but you've brought up wider concerns. If there's a specific concrete proposal that editors can focus on, wider than my proposed edit, then it would be worthwhile to make it on the talk page and ask for additional comment specifically on that. I don't think it would work to bother other editors without something concrete that they can help decide (although that can be done). Please tell me what you think. The possible noticeboards where the request for comment could be posted include Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Thoughts? Noroton (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please post a version of your proposed language at the Talk/Barack Obama page as soon as possible? Some edit warring has started, and a complaint has been filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit War/Continual Ayers/Rezco/Write Debate. As you know, admins at AN/I will only involve themselves as admins in behavioral problems (although some new editors may come to the page to edit). I'd like to post requests for comment at the various boards I mentioned and get some new editors in ASAP. Please advise. Cheers, Noroton (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Floorsheim: where 'dja go! :^) — Justmeherenow (   ) 10:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

n/p! — Justmeherenow (   ) 12:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry I had an edit conflict on the above changes, was trying to revert changes from an edit prior to yours but unfortunately reverted yours too. My apologies. --Nuttycoconut (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I waited for you so long, Scjessey has jumped the gun (here) by offering a proposal on treating the Ayers situation with a supposedly "balanced" list of options that makes his POV seem more reasonable. I wanted to wait for you because you had written quite a lot on the subject and came out with good proposed language for all the controversies. Of course I don't blame you for having a life with other responsibilities, but waiting is really messing this up now. If you can't put something together and get it on the page very early this evening (five hours from now), I'll do it myself and hope for your support. Noroton (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It was actually my bad to have waited so long. I should've got going earlier and realized it wouldn't be a problem. Best of luck with the move. I always find I need more boxes than I originally estimated when I move, and I always find Ziplock bags useful. And it always takes longer than I think it will take. Good luck. Noroton (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		Please Vote For Change We Can Believe In Or Even No Change at Obama Article
		Requesting your final opinion on the Bill Ayers language You previously !voted (here) on what language to use at the Barack Obama page. We're trying to get a consensus now. Please take another look at how the discussion has progressed (especially here) and consider what option might make the best consensus, then !vote again at Talk:Barack Obama#Call the question after detailed discussion: Option 3 or not?. Please keep in mind the discussion has been long, so if you can accept what seems to be a likely option, please do. This is one of Wikipedia's most prominent articles. Thank you. Noroton (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You're the 26th person I've sent this to, and likely the last. I sent it to everyone who voted in the last tally, and either you didn't or I missed you. Still plenty of time. If I knew how to make this red, white and blue, I would have. Noroton (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to encourage you to continue to participate at Talk:Barack Obama and related articles. I am taking a 30-day voluntary Wikibreak from the topic. You seem to be one of the more restrained and compromise-minded people who have contributed recently to the discussion. Please review my comments on User talk:Bigtimepeace. BTP is an admin who has volunteered to monitor the progress of the article, which is one of the reasons why I feel confident that I can take 30 days off, without it turning into an Obama campaign brochure. Discussion there now appears to be constructive. Cheers Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned in a WP:ANI report here. You may wish to participate in the discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw that. Thanks for your help. ==Floorsheim (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]