Talk:Main Page

Some Development Questions (open)
Joe encouraged me to post my questions on the "main talk page". Hopefully, I post it on the right place.

I am the developer of the site Math Harbour (young GNU project) that developes search engines at Mathematics. You can find it here http://sites.google.com/site/mathharbour/, but it will soon have the domain "mathharbour.com". I will write more about the type of the GNU-license, when the site gets better integrated. Recommendations are welcome.

'''A summary of my questions: '''

1. Why can not CSE googlebot find most definitions in Proof Wiki? Please, test the term "dimension" in the Define -engine (http://sites.google.com/site/mathharbour), and then test the term "bijection". The latter term only works.

2. Can I embed your site without any modification with iFrames? An example is http://sites.google.com/site/proofmath/. Please, notice that I am not stealing anything, Proof Wiki only gets more traffic and I think it is a good thing.

3. If Math Harbour have your site embedded, I hope you can embed some of its search engines. I will, of course, make them much better if you want them. The Define Math and Proof Math -engines would fit to Proof Wiki (particularly if problem in 1st Question can be fixed).

 - My original post to Joe

''Firstly, I want to thank for your great service. I have three questions. One question is related to Google CSE. The other is related to the GNU license. The third is related to the sites.

I have developed some engines, and one of the engines index some of your definitions: please, search for "bijection" in

* http://sites.google.com/site/mathharbour/Search-Engines/define-math

I have one problem. Google CSEs can find only the first page of your definitions even though the index is like:

* http://www.proofwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Definitions&from=H * ...   * http://www.proofwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Definitions&from=Z

1. Why does it not work?

The reason for the other question to make 100% that my site can embed your site in iFrame (without any modification). To make my question clearer, you can see here an example:

* http://sites.google.com/site/mathharbour/Search-Engines/math-proof

I will take it immediately away if it somehow endangers the license. If I can understand it right, it should not.

2. Can I embed your site without any modification with iFrames to my site? Proof Wiki benefit from the traffic of Math Harbour.

Finally, I believe your site would benefit from the engines. I am developing them openly, free for contributions, under GNU-license. I will soon include more about the topic to the site. If you allow me to embed your site in iFrames, I am ready to customise engines to your site so you can embed it to your site. Alternatively, Google offers some Ajax-code so you do not necessarily need iFrames.

3. What kind of engines your site would like to have?

Please, do not hesitate to contact me. --Heooo

I don't initially foresee a problem with with having ProoWiki pages embedded, the whole page is there so I don't think it will violate the license. --Joe (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Change of Image namespace
The new version of MediaWiki has changed the namespace Image to File. Though it is still backward compatible, I think we should begin to use File:filename.ext when calling an image. --Joe (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A Question about Random Pages
I was unable to contact Joe by email. Hence, I will publicly ask.

The "Random proof" is a very cool feature. Pages, such as "random proof in algebra", "random proof in logic" and "random proof in graph theory", would be useful as well. So are there more random pages? Is it possible to get them more?

I was talking to Heooo via email, and we may be working towards this idea, implementing new search engines on ProofWiki. --Joe (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I found a Perl script that randomizes the Logic articles in Wikipedia, here. Wget it, and then you can investigate it. It is not a big thing, but it helps not to reinvent the wheel :) -- Heooo

The ProofWiki look (open)
I'm working on editing the look of the site so that we don't look exactly like Wikipedia. This is what I've been working on so far if you want to take a look at it tell me what you think (likes and dislikes). All you have to do is copy what I have and paste it into you own page at User:username/monobook.css (You may have to clear your cache: Ctrl+Shift+r in firefox I think). Any feedback would be great. I've already made some small changes to the main one for ProofWiki such as rounding the edges on the boxes. --Joe (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm immediately noticing two things: red (i.e. nonexistent) links on the top bar (discussion, delete, etc) are really hard to read, and the gaps in some places seem pretty big, especially between the top link bar and the page title. Also, fyi, I think something you did overrode my theme selection (I had changed it in preferences). I'm trying out the one you made, so I don't know if I can change back/what your modifications would do to other themes, but I thought you should know. --Cynic (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it so that you can change you theme! The monobook.css only effects the monobook skin (which is the site default for new users). --Joe (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ... not sure I like orange much, I'm more of a purple man. But hey, it ain't wikipedia (not necessarily either a bad or good thing) and it looks clean and neat. Nice one. May play with the colors on my own monobook.css. --Matt Westwood 21:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've edited it a little more ( Fixed header spacing and colours). Thoughts? --Joe (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thumbs up :) Nice enhancement. --Heooo

Open question: How to deal with Complexity?
Future challenge is to keep the site simple. Will ProofWiki become more complex by expanding to other areas, besides books and mathematicians? Personally, I feel that examples would fit the site rather than the latter two topics, because they make proofs easier to understand. Perhaps, a collection site, like Serverfault for Stackoverflow, would store ambiguous topics. My site, Math Harbour, can help the use to some extent, but it will be very hard if the site is becoming too large to control.

I will give some examples, so that my point is easier to understand. ProofWiki has its timeline of Mathematicians here. Then again, you can see many other timelines here and here. You can see them even more if you investigate the topic here. The timelines are to some extent different. Still, I am afraid that the wheel is reinvented. What do you think? --Heooo

Yes, it's complex and probably going to get more complex. The plan as I see it is to link everything to everything else, so that it will be possible to trace every single result back to the most basic axioms (that's where I'm bogged down at the moment). If it expands into physics, for example (as well it ought to, there are many mathematical results that are somewhat impenetrable without the application to provide a motivating factor) then so it be. It's bound to expand into all sorts of other areas (just wait till we get round to statistics, that should be jolly) but till it does so we can but watch and wait.

The history timelines you cite are all very well, but one's just names and lines, the other one's just a few milestones here and there. Ours is different from both. I thought the mathematicians list would be a good idea so that the user would have a framework on which to hang the otherwise somewhat bald mathematical results.

As for the books, the idea was that we could cite where certain important results originally came from. I was being taken to task at one point for not quoting my sources from someone whose source I quoted. Rather than copy the details of the publications the things come from over and over again, I thought how about a page where all the important books live. But maybe that's a bit ambitious and unwieldy a task so maybe rethink that bit. But please, please, let's keep the mathematicians page. --Matt Westwood 19:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Matt, we still need to get a feel for the Book's section. But in terms of the mathematicians, its not so much a timeline, more of a list of who proved what with the fortunate property that it is in chronological order. --Joe (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your ambitions. The url is then rather misleading. By the word "ProofWiki", I understand that the site is about proofs and related things. I am worried that if you specialise too much in mathematicians and books, then the quality of proofs (main idea of the site) may deteriorate. If you continue to expand topics, rather than enhancing the content by examples and such things, ProofWiki will have a time when it needs seriously consider management issues. How is it possible to control the huge variety of content in one Wiki (on one front page etc)?

I will return to the issue as I have experimented enough with the Google here. My belief is that it may solve the future problem in ProofWiki if it solves the same problem in Math Harbour. Please, do not get too concerned about the topic. You can continue with proofs, while I am investigating the topic. I will report my findings until I do not get the domain www.mathharbour.com propagated. --Heooo

We're limited in all these things by what gets contributed. Not many people are actually doing a great deal to expand the site in any direction. Once we have enough input we'll be able to shake it down and consolidate what we have. Feel free to start adding stuff. Several areas still untouched: stats/prob, mathematical physics, graph theory (barely started) are good areas to attack.

Oh yes, and we have a handful of pages on mathematicians out of nearly 2000 pages of proofs. That's hardly "specialisation" in mathematicians and books --Matt Westwood 05:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You are on the important point. Your challenge is your own ambition. I feel there are enough work on the current topics. Please, try to work smarter, not harder. Google Sites advertises itself by Free wikis. It provides sitemap automatically. Its integration to other Google products is easy. Perhaps, you could use some iFrame thing in Google Sites if MediaWiki is not sufficient provider. At least, it works with "rudimentary" knowlegde. Later, you can extend to Google App, a very cool service to collaborate. My belief is that ProofWiki could have much more users with the right platform. Please, notice that you don't need to start everything from the scratch. You can build on the top of the Mediawiki things. I repeat: "try to work smarter, not harder." ProofWiki is such a great site to lose. Hopefully, you won't burn out due to the platform.

Ps. If you start to use Google App, I want to become a member. It would help in managing things with a separate calendar/chat/gmail etc. --Heooo

I don't understand what you mean when you say "work smarter not harder". I'd disagree in that in order to work smarter you have to work harder. It's hard work sometimes boiling down the essence of several different presentations of a particular result in order to provide something webworthy. It would be easy just to slap up whatever proofs we can find on the web and let them hang there in mid-air, so to speak, but that won't do for this site. We try to work harder to provide something smarter.

It's light relief for me to do a bit of history, so when I'm in the mood I put some stuff about mathematicians up. I work on this site as a hobby, so as to decompress from a stressful and insufficiently intellectually challenging day-job. As such I would prefer to carry on as I am until I've finally achieved the result I'm aiming for (however long that takes). Ars longa, vita brevis. --Matt Westwood 21:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

ProofWiki in Search engines?
Let's take an example of the site here. Please, google one of its sentences such as: "From its definition, a group is a monoid, all of whose elements have inverses and thus are invertible."

You cannot find Proofwiki. Have you posted the sitemap? Please, read here and here. I feel the topic to be serious because ProofWiki should be much more popular in the searches. Hopefully, you can get it fixed. --Heooo

Could be because "group", "monoid" etc. are in the source code as internal links and therefore the linker can't pick up the text as is because it's not stored "as is". But I don't know about such things, my computer abilities are rudimentary. --Matt Westwood 05:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern now. The sitemap -application seems to be outdated. --Heooo

So I think that search engines being able to search ProofWiki efficiently is important. I'm wondering why it's not easy to search for things on ProofWiki via say Google, but it is for Wikipedia which runs the same software. Is it that the crawlers aren't getting to all the pages, or maybe that the material on the pages is not easily searchable? If you have any ideas of how to make the site more searchable let me know. Also, I find that the onsite search engine is not the greatest. I know that you can use a Google search, but I have not bothered to try it yet. If you wanted to try this out, figure out how to do it / make a custom one, I can give you access to a test version of ProofWiki that you can use to develop. --Joe (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The test version sounds good. Hopefully, I can use Git, rather than Subversion, because I tend to break things :) I could, of course, start to develop a site based on ProofWiki in Google App, so you can concentrate on proofs. Perhaps, it is the easiest way to do. Then, I will just invite you, when the time comes due. --Heooo

Yes, it is basically a sandbox. It's not Git or Subversion, but just a replica of the site as it was a few weeks ago. Anything you break can just be overwritten with a new copy. In terms of of Google App. I'm not sure how that would work, the MediaWiki software is very versatile and easy to use / develop for. What excatly to you mean by "evelop a site based on ProofWiki in Google App", what advantages would this have over the MediaWiki software? Once you have an idea for how to develop a custom internal Google search engine let me know, email me with a username/pass. you want to use and I'll email you directions on how to connect. --Joe (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You can create your Free account here. You can post your Sitemap here. First, we need to solve the sitemap issue before any "internal" search thing or anythning else. It should be of the top priority. --Heooo

I am working on uploading a sitemap now. --Joe (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well done. Let's see how Google sees ProofWiki in two days :) --Heooo

Google now has a copy of the sitemap, lets see what it does with it!--Joe (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Just typed "a group is a monoid, all of whose elements have inverses" into Google and it picked up the very page that Heooo was trying out earlier. So that seems to have worked. (Incidentally it also picked up a book on phonology in an interesting context.) --Matt Westwood 18:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's awesome! --Joe (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please, google them:

"The unique minimal subfield in a field F is called the prime subfield of F."

Zenzizenzizenzic

Meromorphic Function site:proofwiki.org

No result will occur. The reason is probably that your site seems to have many sitemaps, and you changed permissions of only one. More here.

@Joe: The sitemaps should be chained to indices. Then, you should change their permissions. If you change the permissions one-by-one, the risk is greater for human errors. Can you create me a sandbox to fix the issue? I am very interested how the sitemaps and indices really work. --Heooo

I can give you access, only problem is that right now it is just FTP access. No SSH :(. So I don't think it would be easy to test the sitemaps. Though I do have an extension installed that helps with that. Either way, email me with a user name and pass, and I'll set you up with access to the test site ( and ftp access to the files). --Joe (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Google Gadget for ProofWiki?
ProofWiki is now in ToolkitMath. It covers things such as definitions, proofs and unsolved problems. The new gadget should help to use ProofWiki, Math Harbour as well as many other useful sites at Mathematics. You are free to use the Gadget in ProofWiki or better everywhere in Google! Things will be much improved when the problem with sitemaps is corrected. --Heooo

Things you find when you surf
Pointless topology. Yes I know it means "an approach to topology without mentioning points", but it is a term that begs one to add the word "utterly" in front of it.

Then there's sober spaces and Stone duality that you just have to call "stoned duality".

Delightful. --Matt Westwood 22:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Further software graphics tools questions
We've discussed tools for rendering graphics on this site before. I've been using GeoGebra for graphs, and geometrical diagrams, and it's excellent.

What I need to do is to be able to draw:
 * Commutative diagrams, which are mentioned on this Wikimedia page but I haven't tried this technique yet because I haven't needed to write any of these yet;
 * Semantic Tableaux, i.e. the sorts of decision trees as described here;
 * Venn diagrams.

I'm searching for some Venn diagram s/w at the moment, on and off, but I have problems with my machine at the moment, it's not running Java, I can't ftp and my unzip program won't work so I have a rebuild to do. This will have to wait till I have more spare time than an hour here and there, should be a couple of weeks time perhaps.

Till then, any info anyone has about how these sorts of graphics can be rendered, drop in here. Thx. --Matt Westwood 21:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

T2k
We're up to 1998 proofs as I type. Anyone care to bang in a couple of quick ones? --Matt Westwood 21:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Definition Categories
I think we brought this up once before, but we really should decide about categorizing definitions. It seems to me that we should have categories for definitions as subcategories of the definitions category rather than under the relevant proofs category. What do others think? --Cynic (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah okay, deliberate decision on my behalf to make the subcategory in question ... The definitions I've been setting up are relevant purely to the specific exposition of propositional calculus that I'm putting up at the moment.

I think we need to keep this subdivision in, but whether we keep it where it is or move it to be a subcategory "Definitions/Propositional Calculus" is a decision that I'm willing to defer. If pressed, I'd suggest that subcategorising definitions off of PropCalc is better than a PropCalc subcateg of definitions - because then the defs are specifically relevant to the exposition of PropCalc that I've got. There are other systems which can also be added, all of which may need their own subcategories. I think. Not quite sure how it will pan out yet. --Matt Westwood 20:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

We should probably begin to consider what to do with the definitions. The general category is getting pretty big. I'm not sure if we can actually use proper subpages in the Category namespace...hummm....might end up with categories like. Which itself isn't so bad, but might get confusing when adding that to a more general definition category. One of the listings would be Defintion/Logic. Probably better then the huge list we have now. --Joe (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with this approach is that it may be difficult for casual users to browse for a particular definition: Entering "Definition:Group" for example, will put them right on the button, but knowing to have to enter "Definition/Group Theory:Group" for example, is more like hard work, specially if some of the categories for some of the definitions may be less intuitively obvious. Unless we always add a redirect. Come to that, maybe we need a redirect from "Group" to "Definition:Group" as it is at the moment. Let me go away and think about this.--Matt Westwood 12:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm making a start on this, to see how it goes.--Matt Westwood 13:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The first phase of this task is complete.

The only remaining entries in the top level are:
 * Genuinely "generic" entries which relate to 'most every category;
 * Disambiguation pages to multiple definitions, all of which reside in different categories (in progress - there are still several disambigs to put in here);
 * Stuff I'm not sure where to put.

Note that there may be plenty of definitions which have perhaps been misplaced. Feel free to either relocate any or add further category locations for any of these.

Also feel free to add further subcategories (e.g. Set Theory may have the "relations" and "mappings" subclasses added).--Matt Westwood 20:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Links to other sites
Wonder whether we want to add links to other relevant sites. I find them all the time. Here's an example (whose educational politics I personally endorse completely). It would be good to have a section on the left of the main page, perhaps, where we could add these links and then legitimately mail those sites with: "Look, we've cited you - now what do you think of us?" --Matt Westwood 07:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd endorse that completely. Above or below the news column would be my suggestion for the location. --Cynic (talk) 04:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, any ideas for sites add below, then we'll work on adding then contacting them. --Joe (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Add Here: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ http://planetmath.org/ http://www.cut-the-knot.org/ http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-help/ http://www.mersenne.org/ http://www.seventeenorbust.com/ http://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/index.php http://nrich.maths.org/public/ http://plus.maths.org/ http://isquaredmagazine.co.uk/# http://xkcd.com/ http://www.latex-project.org/ http://www.w3.org/Math/Software/ http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/taocp.html http://www.abstractmath.org/MM/MMIntro.htm http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~r-ash/ http://uob-community.ballarat.edu.au/~smorris/topology.htm http://radicaleye.com/lifepage/ http://wildaboutmath.com/ http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-305259.html ... just a few that I have immediate links to. It goes on for ever out there ...

It's easiest just to add to the list, so I put on one and will add more if I think of them. --Cynic (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many of these we should actually include, I don't want it to become to bulky. --Joe (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, keep the focus on proofs, rather than diverting to other topics.

Why? There two reasons:

a) My belief is that such "link farms" will be out-sourced. MathHarbour.com will help people to design and contruct such "link farms". You can already embed some ready "link farm"-gadgets to your site in JS.

How?

1. Please, choose any gadget.

2. Then, copy the JS code behind the button "View Source".

3. Then, just paste it to your site. Wuala, done.

b) Do one thing, but do it well: you have over 2,000 proofs, but how many active users? Different types of proofs would be a Big Plus. For example, I am working on a proof by Contradiction. Please, see my next talk for a further suggestion.

As I have implied earlier, if you divert to other topics, the site is not about Proofs. The name ProofWiki should tell that the site contains by-and-large Proofs. I will do my best to help in the combat against the usability problems, such as "link farms". -- Heooo

AJAX to hide comments
Please, have a look at the proofs here.

It has sections for a direct proof and a proof by contradiction.

It is hard to read due to comments. Is it possible to hide the comments with some AJAX sliding mechanism?

It is not hard. Please, copycat VisualWikipedia. --Heooo

You can comment stuff out so it doesn't show up on the page by putting it between  Cynic  (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess this can answer both of your questions, this one and the one below. Right now there are not ways to do this, basically extensions need to be developed to do this. If you would be interested in helping, it would be greatly appreciated! --Joe (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

How can I have better internal references?
Please, have a look at the proof by contradiction here. I would like to make 100% clear to the reader, where the statements contradict. I inserted there (1) and (2) in bold, but it is rather hard to read. How can I have more elegant internal references? -Heooo

Simpler Logo for ProofWiki
You can see my suggestions:

1. trial

2. trial

3. trial

I like the 2. trial.

You are free to use the logos. You can do similar logos with.

Let's compete with logos :) --Heooo

The original ones are IMO better because they have the Greek for whatever-it-is and Latin "quod erat demonstrandum" in them, which the new logos don't have. However, the fancy border is good on your suggestions. --Matt Westwood 06:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

4. trial

5. trial

6. trial

7. trial

--Heooo 03:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

8. trial: internationalized 1



9. trial: internationalized 2

--Heooo 04:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Rendering
I just noticed that the homepage was rendering strangely on internet explorer (the log in or create account notice at the top was being broken across several lines), so I changed a small thing and I think it's fixed. However, I don't have a convenient copy of ie6 (two versions outdated, but still heavily used) to check it on, so if anyone does, they should look. --Cynic (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any windows machines or virtual machines, so I can't :(. --Joe (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

JA: I'll crank up my old machine sometime this weekend &mdash; I think it's got Internet Exploder 6 (and even NetScrape 4 ha!) still on it. Jon Awbrey 14:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Links to definitions
I've just noticed that when you want to link to a definition, for example  Measure , you don't actually need to include the bit after the | as it automatically recognises that the "Definition:" bit is not part of the string which gets rendered to the screen. So all you need to do is  Definition:Measure . Nice one - when did that happen? --Matt Westwood 06:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That's new to me, must be part of the new MediaWiki software. --Joe (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it in my sandbox. Can you link to a page where it does it? --Cynic (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, I think I was dreaming. Forget this post, it is not the case that it does what it was I stated. Sorry. --Matt Westwood 05:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Searching for definitions
Hello, it appears that definitions rarely turn up on the search page without searching for the "Definition:" prefix. For example, to find the definition of Lebesgue measure, you'd have to search for "definition:lebesgue measure" rather than just "lebesgue measure." Is there any way to alter this without changing the article naming conventions? Mag487 05:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Under your preferences, there is a search tab. There you can select the different namespaces you would like to search. That should do it. --Joe (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Spam attack?
What's with this? --Matt Westwood 20:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I assumed it was spam. The edit has been rolled back, and a three day ban placed on the account/IP. Also, I consider it a good sign that we're getting spam; it means we're big enough that spammers think we are a useful market. --Cynic (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same. However, I had serious issues with the ethics of the site to which the link was directing to ... --Matt Westwood 05:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a worrying trend ...
... but see the latest amendment here ... --Matt Westwood 05:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Policy?
Having recently had to block a user from this site because of unacceptable behaviour, it occurred to me that we don't actually have a "policy" as such.

Would it be a good idea for whoever's concerned (me, Joe and Cynic at least) to get together and hack one out between us? --Matt Westwood 06:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, sounds like a good idea. Any suggestions for when/where/how? --Joe (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the situations that require blocks/bans are fairly self-explanatory. We don't really have a wiki where people will be arguing opinions, after all, if it's here, it has a proof (unless you don't believe .99999... = 1 or something). That said, Wikipedia's blocking policy would be a good place to start if we did want to develop something specific. Here are the reasons from Wikipedia's list that I think might be relevant here: persistently making personal attacks; making personal, professional or legal threats (including outside the Wikipedia site); accounts that appear to have been compromised, as an emergency measure; persistent vandalism; persistent gross incivility; persistent harassment; persistent spamming; persistently violating other policies or guidelines. This could probably be condensed, but I really don't feel like dealing with it now. --Cynic (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we can go with the above, but lose the "persistently". This is not in general a chit-chat / debating site (although what communications happen between consenting adults on individual talk pages is of course up to the individual). Mind, we have to be lenient with anyone who gets a bit excited over mathematics (I can get a bit shouty myself, I'd hate to have to bar myself).

Can't put it in legalese, but here's a few suggestions:

Anyone carrying a personal feud over from another website will get blocked.

Vandalism of pages (including any user's main page that isn't one's own) is a *big* no-no, unless the vandal really thought they were contributing something mathematically relevant (in which case they get a quiet but intense talking-to). Talk pages are up to the individual user to impose their own policy on, and they have the right to complain to the admin. Do we have, or can we create, a link to a page for users to complain on?

Apologies may result in the block being lifted, of course, Subsequent infringements may be treated more severely. --Matt Westwood 20:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

GIMPS
Does anyone participate in the GIMPS project? If so, anyone interested in creating a ProofWiki team? --Joe (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I was doing at one time - but all my spare processing power is now going into Seventeen Or Bust. --Matt Westwood 05:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Functions for returning parts of page name
Take the page name:

Category:Definitions/Propositional Logic

I understand that using the construct one can return the value "Definitions/Propositional Logic".

But how do you get it to return the part after the slash: "Propositional Logic"? I have a feeling I knew once but forgot ...

It would be seriously useful for building templates for the definition subcategories - at the moment one has to cite the name itself rather than be able to refer to it. --Matt Westwood 18:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

 Category: 

should link to the relevant category with the correct name appearing. See Category:Definitions/Field Theory, I just did it there to test it. --Cynic (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: I think it needs to be in includeonly tags to work properly, but it would probably be in the tags in a template anyway, so that's not really an issue. --Cynic (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Perfect!!! Thx. --Matt Westwood 19:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Structural changes
Apologies for so many "minor changes" done recently - I appreciate it's difficult to work out what's been going on when there's hundreds of changes to check.

Having made a start on attacking Graph Theory, I decided to extract the sub-page definitions into separate pages (with redirect to those subpages) for considerable ease of maintenance and linking. So to tidy up and make hunting easier, I went through and (wherever I found them) changed the links to those subpages with their new redirect pages.

This led to a fair amount of disambiguation pages needed, so that's also under way.

I also made a start on doing the same with geometry (in particular Euclidean). And we also have a link in to each of the propositions, indexed by number (it's tricky to find the one you want - this should help). Work in progress here.

Finally I make a template linking the proof categories back to their definition categories, as it was starting to get a bit difficult paging back and forward between them.

Are you okay with me continuing with the updating of the POTW? --Matt Westwood 11:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond to this sooner, must have gazed over it. Feel free to edit the POTW as you see fit, and nice work with everything else! --Joe (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Editing Policy
Sorry I haven't been editing much, but I've been crazy busy (no excuse I know). Besides from Matt, there's not really any other editing going on. What about if we change our edit policy to be that anyone can edit? Basically anyone can now, all they have to do is sign up with a valid email. So really, if we allow this then anyone can edit without and account, and those who want to have their name on the edits can create an account. This will hopefully incline people towards editing if they notice something they want to do but don't want to go through the hassle of making an account. Thoughts? --Joe (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not! It leaves us open for casual nuisance. If we insist that users create an account, then at least we have control over events similar to what we had the other week. Unless your suggestion encompasses that circumstance. But IMO unless we can determine exactly who made what changes, I think it would be a mistake. --Matt Westwood 19:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The person who vandalised a few pages awhile ago has now basically wasted several user accounts. Changes can always be undone, but user accounts are forever with that person. I think for the small amount of vandalism we may get, we are better off having only the IP logged. Blocking the username only forces them to create new user accounts. I think the benefit of having anyone drops in able to make quick change without having to go though the trouble of creating an account outways the minor bit of vandalism we may get. What if we try it; see if it makes any difference, if not revert back to the old ways? --Joe (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Joe. I don't think we're going to get a lot of vandalism (that one was a personal attack), and it would make it more open. If it's a problem, we can reverse it, but we might as well at least see. On a semi-related note, apologies for my having stopped editing too, I've been adjusting to being a freshman in college. I think now that I'm through first semester, I should be able to get back to editing. Matt: let me know if you want me to help you on posting Euclid's proofs or take over on that at least for a while so you can work on other things. --Cynic (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

SORRY - but PLEASE revert back to the previous policy. I think you know why ... --Matt Westwood 00:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to carry on with Euclid, feel free ... I was doing this so as to take a rest from other stuff I've been doing. I need to attack the Lebesgue Integral properly soon, but I'm having difficulty assembling all the relevant source work. --Matt Westwood 07:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Back to old policy. I assume that was a bot attack of some sort. --Joe (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)