Talk:Exponents


 * Original article (Natural Log) was largely unjustified and useless. It isn't perfect, but I've significantly expanded the article to include material on powers, radical, log, and basic operations thereof. I have to step away before completion, but I'll be back as soon as I can to finish the operations section of the Log part of the article.
 * I can see why someone might want to delete the article, but after the last several hours of work writing and formatting the article, it makes me really hope that the folks who can delete it will be kind enough to not to.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I can see why you might want to delete the whole article, but chunks? That's weird. If nothing else, I'd appreciate it if folks would wait until I'm done (probably tomorrow or the next) before deleting stuff, because I intend on, should it be deleted, copying this and saving it in a .txt file.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but there are profound errors of fact on the page as it stands. Those statements about basic operations are just wrong. By all means finish what you intend to write, but if it is as full of errors as what is there already I don't think that it will be worth taking the time to correct them all.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, like I said, I wasn't finished when I saved it. I didn't realize how much time I was going to end up spending working on it when I started or I would have been working in a .txt file. Rest assured, when I save a completed version either later today or tomorrow there will be no errors, which I think were mostly from mental exhaustion after working on this for like 4 hours.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm good. Pretty sure I got rid of any screw ups, but someone feel free to correct me. --Logic and Empricism (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I changed the first errors that I saw in the 'basic opererations' section, but there are still a lot of them in there. Seriously, this is not advanced stuff and I shouldn't have to correct every single sentence. Is this even on-mission? Hamilton, a lot of what isn't obviously wrong here is just incomprehensible. Did you actually try to work any of these things out using actual numbers before posting them here? Try x3 - X2 using X=3 and tell me if the answer is actually 3, as you stated. If you can't clean it up yourself, I vote for it to be deleted for being off-mission.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I knew I fucked something up. Didn't know what, just a nagging feeling. I'll go back through this later today or tomorrow (probably later today) and try to correct myself. It's off mission, in a way.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, think I got everything that I missed last time. My language probably isn't as clear as it can be, but I'm not sure what would be hard to understand for anyone else (the way I process things vs everyone else kind of thing). --Logic and Empricism (talk) 03:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Mission
I see it not. Sophie Wilder  20:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said in the essay I linked to above, a lot, probably about a third, of the articles here are not strictly on mission, and I'm going to continue acting like this site has an additional mission of being a basic reference for math, science, philosophy, and history like most users do anyways, until either that is included in the mission statement, or there is a large scale purge of the off-mission articles.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * so, lots of articles are off mission, therefore you're going to add to that number, for no reason except to bend the wiki to your will. Sophie  Wilder  21:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not so much large scale purge as people hitting Special:Random a lot. Large scale purges are for vandalspace and drekspace. So far anyway. Evil fascist oh noez 21:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree that this has negligible relevance to our mission.  21:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not expanding that number, actually. This was an existing article, and of the other off topic articles I've done something to (Game theory, for example) I actually combined other off topic articles into it. So, really, I'm expanding some off-topic articles while purging others. I'm probably a net negative in that regard.
 * And I'm not sure if 'large scale purge' was the best choice of words on my part. I suppose what I meant was more 'a lot of the articles here are off topic, so if you're going to delete this one for being off-mission in the strictest sense, you're going to need to delete this other large number of article to be fair'
 * But, like I've said before, I understand that this is off-topic, so I wouldn't be too offended if it was deleted, I'd just like enough notice to copy this since it took me a long freaking time to make it. I don't know, maybe I can get away with making it into an Essay.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with the position taken by the "This is off-mission" camp.  Sam   Tally-ho!  04:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)