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