Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:23, 5 January 2010

Welcome!

Hello, Heyitspeter, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

—Ruakh_TALK 00:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Logic

Another response to your message has been added on User talk:BlueNight#Logic. --BlueNight 06:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Lucretius as a scientist

Hi,

You used the following remark to your recent edit note to your recent edit of On the Nature of Things:

Accusing Lucretius of not claiming to be a scientist - a word coined by William Whewell in 1833 - doesn't help to contextualise his work.

My spin on Lucretius is that of a historian of science. If we go by the definition that no one before Whewell was a scientist, we rule out Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Ptolemy, and Aristotle, all of whom occupy major places in the literature of the history of science.

I maintain that when Lucretius claims that we can't know the reasons for eclipses and the phases of the moon, when his predecessors had already made good scientific demonstrations of those reasons, he is making a scientific claim. Any article about his work should evaluate that claim, within the criteria of his time. --SteveMcCluskey 21:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look at what I took out, I think you'll see that our views aren't particularly opposed. I deleted this chunk-

"Actually, Lucretius was a philosopher. As a poet he was competent. But as a scientist, he never claimed to be one, nor did his work claim to be scientific. "De Rerum Natura" is an epistemological foundation for what should be studied, not a study itself."

Philosophy and Science were viewed as synonymous during Lucretius' time. The author of the above text is claiming that, because Lucretius never explicitly referred to himself as a "scientist", his works cannot be treated as scientific. I agree with you that he made "scientific" (if that word means anything) evaluations of his surroundings. I think the article discusses this adequately, but it could be expanded, of course! Thoughts, concerns, criticisms?--134.10.121.56 03:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I made those edits while logged out; accidentally. I've copied these comments and pasted them to my talkpage. This is my username.--Heyitspeter 03:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I got your message; your point was well taken.

As to keeping track of replies, I prefer to keep replies in one place and usually put pages where I've posted on my watch list for a while.

I agree that De Rerum Natura needs work; I see the problem as one of putting some balance in the article's presentation. As I've mentioned in the past on its talk page, the article focuses almost entirely on the ethical side of L's writing. From reading it, one would scarcely know that most of his book was about the physical world. --SteveMcCluskey 03:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'll try to help add as I have time. The article is on my watchlist as well, now. We'll see where it goes!--Heyitspeter 04:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

-Midnightdreary 16:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Richard Rorty

Thank you for that link. It is, as you said, a beautiful article. Cheers, Iknowyourider (t c) 04:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention! There's so much hate directed towards the post-modernists, it seems. It's nice to read an article by someone who can understand them, and is empathetic.--Heyitspeter 18:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins

Thank you for the "public service announcement" from Richard Dawkins :) I'm sorry about the late reply (this is the first time I've actually logged in before viewing wiki pages since the end of October). I think Dawkins means well (at least in his mind) but comes off just as fundamentalist as any sect member. I also appreciated your comments on whether or not Dawkins' criticism of postmodern work is relevant, and the witty idea to include his comments in the "postmodernism is boring" section :) His empty remarks had no place in that article. Feel free to send me more funny youtubes on R. Dawkins' crusade for science. Take care Timeloss 21:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your Message

I might get an account but I prefer if the material speaks for itself. On looking at your above comments I presume you are referring to the postmodernism addition I made. The stuff I added was all referenced, the article had given the impression that PM began in architecture of all things, one of our more conservative arts-- though for that reason a good indicator of entrenchment! It also left out the fact that the word was used as early at 1870 and a number of other uses, eg Pannwitz from Nietzsche in 1917, and others that the OED showed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.45.210 (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, whatever works. At the very least it'll be a good experiment. Maybe I'm the first to demonstrate unconscious bias against unregistered users! In any case, the Postmodernism article definitely does need work, and hopefully we'll get more like you (or even from you) as we go on. --Heyitspeter (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

PROD tag

Hello,

As an FYI, {{PROD}} is actually only for article space, not talk pages. The correct way to flag a redirect for deletion is {{db-move}}. That said, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity is actually the correct title as book titles normally have all important words capitalized per Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (capitalization). --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Check the bookcover here... Of course book titles 'normally' have all important words capitalized. We have an abnormality on our hands. It's likely that he actively chose to lowercase each word, for the same reason he actively (and explicitly) chose to lowercase the word truth to demarcate it from Truth, which he discussed in this very same book. Please reconsider making the deletion. --Heyitspeter (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Why the capital letters?

Why would you title an article Epistemic Modal Logic with capital "M" and a capital "L", instead of epistemic modal logic with lower-case initials? WP:MOS clearly calls for lower case except when there's some special occasion for using the capital, and that's what you see all around you on Misplaced Pages. (I've moved it to the title with lower-case initials.) Michael Hardy (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha why are you angry? It was unintentional; you can think of it as a typo. I'm not even sure the move was warranted in the first place it'd be nice to expand on the article to encompass non-modal epistemic logic without creating two separate articles. Here's hoping there's literature on that. --Heyitspeter (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey its Peter

Re:Interpretation (logic)

The formulation that you reverted is strictly more correct than yours. No it is not a function in an object language, it is an expression in a metalanguage talking about an object language (i.e. saying what the symbols of it mean). Most significantly to observe is that ontologically, it is an idea (or concept or abstraction depending on your POV). I am puzzled by your apparent confidence given that this isn't a difference of formulation, you are saying it is something it isn't.

The type-token distinction in dealing with ideas is well known and used to clarify this very thing (see Carnap Quine, Putnam etc). On a brighter note, I am glad to see your contributions in general. I think there are some things we may agree on that others do not. Be well Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

My phrasing was poor but I stand by my statement. Your thinking of interpretation as hermeneutic. This is interpretation as logical function. You're proposed header should go on another page called "What does formal logic signify?" or something. Please read the section above the one you just voted on.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay help me out here...what statement do you disagree with ...

A) an interpretation is an idea, and the written marks on a page are tokens of the idea. (I understand that people commonly don't make this distinction in casual language, however the idea here is to be as precise as the academicians).

B) an interpretation is expressed in a metalanguage whose expressions talk about some object language.

Both are quite true<ref>Geoffery Hunter, ''Metalogic''</ref>

I agree with you that "extension" should be included (in place of "meaning" is just fine and appropriate clarification), however I don't think anyone else in the group cares about that kind of stuff -- at all. I also would love to see a section on interpretations of modal logic as well. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It sounds trivial but this ambiguity affects the entire article. The section on truth-functional connectives that I just altered originally claimed that the connectives are interpreted. This only makes sense if you take interpretation other than in the technical sense. Again, sorry I was overly harsh. That was unwarranted on various levels.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have been pointing out, they are interpreted. We could equally well interpret ${\displaystyle \lor }$ to denote conjunction. But, because these are usually treated as logical constants in first-order logic, we do not require a structure (mathematical logic) to define meanings for them. That does not mean that they are not interpreted. The article is not only about first-order interpretations; it also includes interpretations in which ${\displaystyle \lor }$ indicates conjunction and ${\displaystyle \land }$ indicates disjunction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah, that's not it. Since interpretation isn't meaning, it's okay to say that ${\displaystyle \lor }$ means "or", while admitting that the symbol is uninterpreted. Remember that a logic has multiple interpretations (2^n where n = the number of sentence letters), but the logical connectives remain constant.

If ${\displaystyle \lor }$ was uninterpreted, then we would have no semantics (no extension, no truth value, no meaning) for ${\displaystyle A\lor B}$, even if we have a truth value for A and for B. Whenever we assign semantics to a symbol, that is an "interpretation" in the sense of the article in question. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't realized that you're dealing with two uses of the word interpretation. First reread the comment you just now responded to. Then read the now-edited section on logical connectives in the disputed article. This is explained there.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do realize that. I am saying that the article is about the broader concept of assignment of semantic meaning to symbols, not about the narrower concept of structure (mathematical logic). The point of logical constants is not that they are uninterpreted, but that they are always interpreted the same way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

But none of the article is about that, even just as a fact of the matter. I was thinking about this, though. I suppose you could ask why we use a given interpretation function, and this would broach a lot of the subjects that you seem to want to address. For example, why assign "1" to P when you're doing philosophy? The answer seems to be that you are the interpretation function, and you assign "1" to P because you use P as shorthand for "Peter is on Misplaced Pages" and 1 as shorthand for "Truth." That isn't irrelevant to this article. --Heyitspeter (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you make of Interpretation_(logic)#Example? That is at least one example in the article that does not fit into the "interpretation functions" framework. It is true that, at that level of generality, one cannot say too much, so the article goes on to discuss more common systems. But the article is also just missing content about other sorts of interpretations (for example, interpretations of scientific theories should probably be discussed). — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Re Gregbard: There is a section in the article on nonclassical logics, although it is short. As for particular issues with your text:

• The "idea" sentence in particular is misguided; we could start every article on mathematics with "XXX is an idea,..." but that would not help anything. An interpretation, in many cases of interest, is a function; I have no idea what a physical token of a function is.

Carl, this is a wild presumption that just everything is an idea so there is no point in identifying ideas. The point here is that the things we are dealing with are the type of idea that does not appear to the mind as an image, and therefore the only precise way to define them is to recognize that we are dealing with ideas, not marks on paper. Logicians use the marks on paper as a tool to help understand the ideas. Unfortunately, this practice can lead to paradox if the distinction is not made explicit. That's why "metalanguage" and the "type-token distinction" is important. This is the way responsible analytic philosophers and logicians deal with these things.-GB

• The "expressed in a metalanguage" claim is also off, for the same reason. In the specific case of first-order logic, an interpretation is a structure, which is a collection of sets. There are uncountably many interpretations, and thus most of them cannot be "expressed" in any reasonable (i.e. finitely definable) metalanguage.

Carl, it is not essential for the existence of a formula that there be any actual token instances of it. This is the only way it makes any sense to talk about a language with uncountably many formulas in the first place. There just is no such thing as an object language that floats out there with no metalanguage. It exists as an idea and there is nothing anyone can do about it from the moment there is any object language. It make no sense to me to talk about object langauge without talking about metalanguage. If there are further distinctions to make as you claim, then they should be elucidated (perhaps in its own section).-GB

• The claim "The formal languages used in mathematical logic and theoretical computer science are defined in solely syntactic terms, " is false. For example, the set of sentences in the language of arithmetic that are true in the standard model of the natural numbers is a formal language, but is not definable in syntactic terms.

I think you have unintentionally mish-mashed syntax and semantics inappropriately for two languages. A formal language must be capable of being defined entirely in terms of its syntax and without regard to any interpretation of it otherwise it is not a formal language. This is also from Hunter. .-GB

— Carl (CBM · talk) 01:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Be well Carl. Stay cool. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

1. A formal language is any fixed set of sentences over a fixed alphabet. Therefore the set of sentences that are true in the standard model of the natural numbers is a formal language. Hunter is somewhat idiosyncratic on this point, which is why it is important to consult more than one reference. Every set of sentences forms a formal language; thus most of them will not be syntactically definable.
2. As I have pointed out before, there is an equally valid argument that a formula is a token, as it is a syntactic object. Again, you cannot look only at one reference. It is telling that most books on mathematical logic manage to describe formulas perfectly well without using the word "token". It would be silly to claim such books are not by "logicians".

— Carl (CBM · talk) 02:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation (logic)

I think the conversation there is getting somewhat frustrating, so perhaps we can start fresh.

I completely understand what an interpretation of propositional logic, predicate logic, or modal logic is. And the books you have cited use the usual terminology for that.

My concern is that the article is intended to cover interpretations more generally. For example:

• For the language consisting of words on the two symbols "A" and "B", one interpretation assigns each word an integer by subtracting the number of Bs from the number of As
• Another interpretation of the same language assigns each word to a location on the Cartesian plane. You start at the origin facing North. Then, working from left to right: each "A" means go forward one unit, each "B" means turn 90 degrees to the right.

Now the article does spend some time on interpretations of propositional and first-order logic. It probably spends too long on those, as they are covered in depth in other articles, and so can be just summarized. But the article does not spend long enough on interpretations of modal logic, nor on interpretations of intuitionistic logic.

By the way, interpretations of intuitionistic logic are one place where the connective are not given the same meaning as in classical logic. For example, the BHK interpretation is an "interpretation" in some sense, but does not assign the same meanings to the connectives that classical interpretations do. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I will be traveling for a few days and so my responses will be delayed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool I like that. It seems like a usage of interpretation that doesn't fit my understanding of the term as it relates to logic. Let's include it. How do you want to handle that? Should we make a clear distinction between the two types of interpretation, in separate sections? You seem more mathematically inclined, so maybe you'd be able to translate the general mathematical definition of interpretation from that article you linked into layman's terms and then use the rest of the article to discuss the broader senes of "interpretation"? Have fun on your trip.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Say Hey (itspeter), I think perhaps you may be interested to see another version of the Interpretation article which had existed previously with a lot more sections, more complete sections, etcetera. It was filled with overly complex material however I admit, but the current version is still lacking some of the material covered in it. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Three revert rule notification

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I opened a discussion about the section I think you're referring to, which I didn't mean to revert to so many times, on the talkpage. Can you please discuss your edits there as I asked? --Heyitspeter (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Consider leaving the section alone for a few days. Thanks for trying to improve it, but give a few more days for more WP:RS to understand what was done and report it. The editors who don't understand what happened will need time to figure out their errors. The topic is still evolving. -- SEWilco (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Explain?--Heyitspeter (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The notification didn't say what this is about, but I think it's referring to Mike's Nature trick edits. Some editors haven't yet learned Mike's Nature trick, although they think they understand it. Maybe they'll figure it out soon. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see nah if I remember right it was me reverting ChrisO who kept reverting my triple-sourced edit that the emails appear to show evidence of, etc., without mention of climate change skepticism, in an attempt to make sure the article represented the fact that climate change sceptics are not the only people that see the emails in this way.--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruption

Please don't edit-war on the FAQ. AQFN made a change. S/he made no case for the change, but it's an acceptably bold move. It was undone. Which is entirely appropriate if you disagree with a change. Then you reverted that edit. At that point, you're edit-warring. You're ignoring the fact that (a) there should be consensus for a change (either obtained beforehand, or implicit, when no one objects), and (b) when other editors undo a change, the next step is to discuss. By edit-warring you're short-circuiting the discussion. Especially in light of the past discussion about edit-warring over the FAQ, your actions are disruptive. Please undo your revert and allow the discussion to proceed. Guettarda (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitely was not "edit-warring." I gave an explanation of my edits and a redirect to the relevant discussion on the talkpage while respecting the 3-revert rule. As to your (a) and (b)... a) this goes both ways. There was no consensus on the edits I reverted. As to (b), I'm glad you opened the discussion on the talkpage of the article. I honestly want to thank you for that. But it's my opinion that given that the majority of editors on the FAQ withheld edit summaries, Gamaliel can't be blamed for making the edits (s)he did, and that (s)he probably would have wanted them reverted if given more information.

The questions in dispute are wildly inappropriate for an FAQ. The disputed additions to these questions were added (and not by me) only because outright deletion of these questions was repeatedly reverted, with no basis in consensus. The inclusion of an answer for an FAQ implies that the answer is authoritative and noncontroversial. This is patently not the case, and editors have been trying to reflect that.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on the climategate question.

Reverting on the FAQ without engaging in discussion is disruptive. I'll assume you didn't see my notice before, but reverting the FAQ without discussion is tremendously disruptive. Don't do it. If you can find no compromise solution to disputes on the FAQ, then perhaps you need to take a break. Hipocrite (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My edits did reflect the consensus, or more particularly lack thereof. The two disputed questions have been repeatedly discussed with no consensus reached and so should not be included in the FAQ (barring strong qualifiers), as I tried to make happen with the two edits I made. It would, of course, be best to remove these disputed questions/answers from the FAQ entirely. p.s., you've been reverting as well (see here). --Heyitspeter (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Please look over WP:CONS, and please check the edit history of the FAQ to see the large number of reverts made by multiple users without full discussion on the talkpage (whatever that's supposed to mean). It feels as though I'm being unfairly confronted by you because you happen to disagree with my edits. --Heyitspeter (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My revert wasn't a revert because it was followed up by an attempt at consensus (after fixing the formatting disaster). Your revert appeared to be the only revert that did not also involve either an attempt to reach consensus via edits or unprompted discussion on the talk page. If you see another editor who reverted without discussing on the talk page, bring them to my attention. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Then mine wasn't a revert either, and did involve such attempts. As for bringing editors who revert "without discussion" to your attention, I won't bother. I'm not of the opinion that an editor who reverts a page without writing a neat entry on its corresponding talkpage is committing an infraction. But if you'd like to do something about it, then find someone in the edit history. --Heyitspeter (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate templates on FAQ

In answer to your query:

1) Both of the templates you added are supposed to be used only in articles. See Misplaced Pages:Template messages/Disputes. The FAQ is not an article and has no requirement to be NPOV.

2) Adding a template to a transcluded FAQ page results in that template appearing in the main talk page. Putting an "NPOV" tag on a talk page is pointless, to put it mildly. NPOV does not apply to talk pages - it applies only to articles and other encyclopedic content such as images. The opening section of WP:NPOV makes this clear.

3) The FAQ page requests users to discuss it on the main talk page. Please do that rather than slapping tags onto the FAQ.

4) Finally, you've been asked before not to edit-war or disrupt the FAQ. Please take heed of that request. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that why the FAQ was created on a "discussion" page as opposed to the usual "page" page? As for (4), please see above and, when finished, here. I've no expectations, though, as of late.--Heyitspeter (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all - that's the usual way it's done. It was actually modelled on Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ, which works exactly the same way. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Climate change in the United Kingdom. However, please be aware of Misplaced Pages's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Misplaced Pages page, must include proper sources. Thank you. The sentence "with a number of the leaked e-mails containing evidence that scientists had conspired to manipulate data" is 100% unsupported by the references. Highly POV and is a direct WP:BLP violation by defaming living persons. Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please link to the disputed edit? You don't reference the sources that are alleged not to support these "claims"...--Heyitspeter (talk) 12:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps see the definition of evidence? I feel this might be causing confusion... evidence =/= confirmation =/= proof--Heyitspeter (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

In any case, I've continued this discussion on the talkpage of the article you're referencing.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring comments

Would you care to redact your comments to the effect that I was "one of the editors embroiled in the edit war, b) requested full protection after hitting three revert limit "? I was not edit warring, and indeed my last edit to the article was nearly 24 hours prior to requesting protection. You say I "only opened discussion after getting the aforementioned full-protection" and that is correct. --TS 19:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Your request was made at this point in time. This after making these reverts (roughly): here,here, here, and here, breaking the 3-revert rule.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting and very creative interpretation of my editing on the page. I don't count my edits, but I think you could be technically correct that at 2329 on 22nd I had made four reverts in less than 24 hours. However the protection request was at 2236 the following evening, having made no edits on the article in the intervening period. Adopting your strict counting standard for edit warring, at the time of the request I was not edit warring and had not exhausted any notional "quota" of three reverts (which as you no doubt know isn't the real criterion by which edit warring is judged anyway). --TS 08:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Creative? It's a bright-line rule, described in Misplaced Pages's page on edit warring (see here). I'm hardly "interpreting." --Heyitspeter (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Moving page steps

Next time you move a page, please move the associated talk page and clean up the double redirects. I've done it for you on the recent move. Hipocrite (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahh yeah thanks for that. I was just copy/pasting the talkpage in its entirety but backed out when the FAQ didn't follow in the preview, whereupon you moved it for me. Sorry about that. I'm not to savvy on wiki machinery. --Heyitspeter (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Probation notice

{{ Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.