"

 Boolean algebras 

I was pleasantly surprised to see you on the list at BATF. I didn't realize discussion was ongoing on one of the Boolean algebras pages; see Talk:Boolean logic for that, and for some background about the established participants. In the end, it will require everyone who already has been involved with the Boolean algebra articles to compromise to find a solution, and having some mediating voices will help. I started an outline on WT:BATF that I hope will draw comments and get the ball rolling. — Carl ( · talk) 

It is good that you are doing this. I hope I will have time to make some helpful comments. I signed up because I got interested in the whole Boolean algebra issue last summer, so if you want to get some idea of my perspective, see Talk:Boolean algebra (structure)/Archive 3. Anyway, as a result, I know some of the participants and opinions involved, and realised that more mediating voices might be valuable! Geometry guy 

 AFD/SEW discussion 

Hi GG,

Regards this comment, I'm not trying to be duplicitous and don't see it as quote mining.  Reading the whole of Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia, I still see it as a grey area on whether SEW is exclusively about language.  The use of 'for example', suggests that the list of possible users is not a comprehensive one.  If Simple wiki is meant to be exclusively linguistically simple but cover the same content to the same depth, then a clarification on that page would be valuable.  It's just my opinion based on my reading of the page.  If I am reading it incorrectly, either I'm stupid, which I doubt  ), or there's wiggle room.  The statements ""Its articles are intended to be less complex..."" and ""In general, Simple English articles are simplifications of the most important points in existing articles...: suggest that SEW is not mere linguistic simplification, it's conceptual as well.  If the purpose of SEW has always been merely linguistic simplification, then the page could be clearer on this point.  If you are certain about the SEW existing exclusively for linguistic variation, I have no problem with editing the page to reflect this, and it should in fact be done if the consensus is Simple is linguistic only (I've left a comment regards this here).  I've never edited SEW or looked at the website itself, so if you've expertise in this area, I'm happy to bow to it.    

 I did not mean to suggest your were being duplicitous: apologies. However, rather than asking me or enwiki what SEW is all about, I suggest checking out SEW itself: Simple English Wikipedia. I will comment further at Wikipedia_talk:Simple_English_Wikipedia. Geometry guy 

I read the Simple's front page and didn't find it explicit enough (for me, but I could be a thicky).  Possibly it's because it's been obvious before what it's for, and now that there's a variety of intro articles on En.wiki and discussion of some sort of policy or guideline, the gaps or lack of distinctions between SEW and intros are appearing.  Note that I've also spammed the discussion here, if you hadn't already seen it.    
That's a good idea. The SEW front page is no help: above, I wikilinked instead Simple:Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia, which is. Geometry guy 

Archimedes on the Main Page! )

Isn't it great that Archimedes is on the Main Page?  It was reading his article (in another encyclopedia, when I was little) that got me interested in geometry and math.  I would open it up and just stare at the sphere, cylinder and cone; then looking up their articles, their surface area and volume formulae got stuck in my head; and then...

I added a little animation to Apollonius' problem in honor of the day.  I'm not very good at this Blender animation thing, so I can't make things appear and disappear; instead, I have to move them into position from off-stage. ;)  I didn't finish the solution — do you think I should?  Also, I got only four solutions?  I sus