This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
On 9 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Double bubble conjecture, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the shape that encloses two given volumes and has the minimum possible surface area is the double bubble commonly formed by soap bubbles? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Double bubble conjecture. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 16:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
David,
I wanted to discuss the change I made and you undid on the Taxicab geometry page. You said, in your update comment, that my change "misses the point". I disagree or maybe I just don't understand what you meant.
The caption to the picture is clearly incorrect. It says "Taxicab geometry versus Euclidean distance: In taxicab geometry all four pictured lines have the same length (12) for the same route. In Euclidean geometry, the green line has length 6×√2 ≈ 8.48, and is the unique shortest path." [emphasis added].
Note that the green line in the picture clearly is not length 12. Note also that the green line is not the "same length" as the other three lines. This is made clear by the final sentence of the caption which says that the green line is length 8.48, showing that the Euclidean distance is shorter than the Taxicab distance.
I would also draw your attention to the default description of the graphic which says "Figure illustrating Manhattan verses Euclidean distance. The red, blue, and yellow lines all have the same length (12), whereas the green line has length ." This again makes the distinction between the three lines of equal length (red, blue, yellow) and the green line that is shorter.
I believe that my original edit was correct in amending the caption to reflect the fact the three of the lines are of length 12 while one line, the green one, is shorter. Please help me understand how this is incorrect or misses the point.
Thanks,
- James
James ( talk) 19:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi David, I made a discovery that Dan Martin has recently been given a named chair and the permanent position as CMU's Dean of the Faculty of Fine Arts (it's a college deanship equivalent to Vice Provost most places since there are five schools the report, with departments inside them). I wonder if you'd consider at least the named chair to satisfy PROF#C5? Thanks, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi David!
You did nice work on this graphic. I've used it on 3 articles so far: guitar tunings, major-thirds tuning, and augmented-fourths tuning.
(I might use it on minor-thirds tuning, but that seems to have been used by only William Sethares's guide on alternative tunings. Sethares's BLP could use work.)
Best regards, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
FYI, David. :)
These were created by editor Hyacinth. :) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 12:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 12:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Answer
|
---|
|
I'm seeing a big red TeX error after your recent edit which I can't see how to correct. Is it possible that it's my browser, or maybe a small typo somewhere in there?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 02:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
This renders fine for me as an anonymous user (except it's missing the last two rows from the original). Justin W Smith ( talk) 04:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
With respect I for one find it a lot easier to read the material with the white spaces - at least while in edit mode. Your mileage may differ. DrMicro ( talk) 19:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 03:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I would really like to bring Stefan Banach up to at least GA level and you've been involved in the article in the past, so this is a request for help. Right now, my sense of it is that the article does a pretty good job of providing an overview of Banach's life but is very weak on what his actual contributions to mathematics were. I've began working on the appropriate section but it really has been awhile since I've dealt with this stuff myself so a pair of eyes double checking (if not actively contributing - please do if you can) this expansion would be much appreciated. Thanks! 00:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Northcott's Nim has been PRODed. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
David – Thanks for your work expanding wikipedia's coverage of matroids! This has been sorely needed. (I've been wanting to work on this as well, but as with too many other topics, I've neglected to do so.) I'll try to help by proofreading/copy editing as my time/energy permits. Thanks again, Justin W Smith ( talk) 17:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi David,
Hello.
Please look at this edit. I don't think the phrase "In matroid theory, . . ." succeeds in telling the lay reader what the article is about. "In algebra, . . ." or "In number theory, . . ." or "In differential equations, . . ." does that, but "In matroid theory, . . ." doesn't. Sometimes the article's title is enough and no such phrase need appear; sometimes more is needed. Michael Hardy ( talk) 13:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I am sorry -- I reverted your edit. Is there such a thing as asymptotic-geometry-stub?
Sasha ( talk) 03:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
On 2 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article De Bruijn's theorem, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Nicolas de Bruijn was inspired to prove De Bruijn's theorem on packing bricks into boxes by his seven-year-old son's inability to pack some bricks into a box without wasted space? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/De Bruijn's theorem. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
You boldly intervened and closed the discussion at
Template:Did you know nominations/Orgastic potency. However, your reason for doing so, while ostensibly valid, interrupts an ongoing, constructive, effort to surmount the lingering qualms that have been the obstacles for passing this article sooner. Also note that
User:Yngvadottir is actively part of this discourse and has laid down a considerbale effort in making requisite changes to the article. Yngvadottir who is no stranger to the DYK process by any measure, including its administrative management, is by all accounts still onboard with the drive to make the article presentable. It is therefore additionally unfortunate that you should bypass her presence and authority by closing in rejecting the nomination as you have done. I will as a matter of course respect the closing but I will protest it, even as I have here now, also on the
article's talk page, requesting a mandate for reopening the nomination—as the hatnote instructions given by {{
DYK top}}
provides for. __
meco (
talk) 08:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
You have previously commented on the redirect On the genus of a graph. There have been significant changes, including the target, since the nomination was made. You may wish to revisit the discussion and confirm whether or not your previous views remain unchanged. Having been relisted the discussion is now at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 7. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
On 10 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Prince Rupert's cube, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Prince Rupert's cube, named for Prince Rupert of the Rhine, can pass through a square hole drilled into a smaller cube (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Prince Rupert's cube. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Panyd The muffin is not subtle 00:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
On 10 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Hilliard (artist), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that John Hilliard's Cause of Death (1974) suggested four different interpretations of one photographic negative? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Hilliard (artist). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Yngvadottir ( talk) 08:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
any chance of you un-deleting a page i created? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Att_Will) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Tommy ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi - I've proposed some changes to the article Mohamed El Naschie on the article's talk page. Since you've commented on previous discussions on that page, I'd appreciate your input on this one. All the best, Markus Poessel ( talk) 18:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi David - You're doing some serious work on Pieter Nieuwland's brand new article, even including reading an 18th century eulogy in Dutch! Just FYI, the first three paragraphs of the bio were a translation of the Dutch wikipedia article. For some reason the editor there gave up while Pieter was still in middle school. Good for you finding references for even this text. Let me know if you need help, e.g. with interpreting Dutch. Afasmit ( talk) 22:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I did not agree with you view that my article on Lecythis ampla which I had nominated here at DYK was close paraphrased so I sought views from others. Would you like to look at the nomination again in the light of the changes I have made and their comments, especially those of Choess. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 06:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
On September 3 you closed as rejected Template:Did you know nominations/Orgastic potency. This was an extraordinary nomination that had lingered a very long time. That notwithstanding, I am appealing for it to be reopened on the grounds of its very particular nature, the same grounds which I believe caused reviewing editors for so long to have reservations about substantively assessing the standing of the article. In this context I have pleaded with two involved editors, Yngvadottir and SlimVirgin to intercede. I am still awaiting the response from Yngvadottir. SlimVirgin did decline to intervene though suggesting I made this call to you, the closing admin. So I do. I make the argument that this article, was never given a fair chance due to quesiness among the reviewers, even though the article objectively should have passed a review at an early stage with only minor adjustments. You may want to confine your response to the present section, but if you will you may also want to make a contribution to Talk:Orgastic potency#Premature DYK rejection. __ meco ( talk) 09:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
On 17 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tomahawk (geometry), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a tomahawk may be used to split an angle into three equal parts, despite the impossibility of doing so with compass and straightedge? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tomahawk (geometry). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi David: thank you for this edit to the Hans Lewy entry. Apparently I fell asleep and saved it without a review. Best, Daniele.tampieri ( talk) 11:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
David, this is not my speciality, could you perhaps have a look at this edit? I'm not sure whether this is legit or OR/opinion. Thanks! -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 13:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Dear David: I appreciate your vigilance, but I believe your arguments against the edits mentioned by Guillame2303 are not correct. First, the 485 number is from the referenced MR page. Second, logically, a caveat about all reference list information certainly applies to any one particular reference list bit of information. This particular edit, however, is much less important, I feel, than making sure users know that the MCQ is based on a restricted list of journals. Your help in designing an acceptable addition to the page would be greatly appreciated. Lonmitchell ( talk) 20:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting retention of this article. — Robert Greer ( talk) 13:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The press release linked to, in my 2nd edit today, is a news item that cites the "external link" URL that I added (and you deleted) as my FIRST edit today.
I understand that persons who are way more familiar than I am, with complexity theory, will decide whether it is true that [as the title claims],
Anatoly D. Plotnikov, Professor, Department “Computer Systems and Networks” East-Ukrainian National University, solved the problem “P vs NP”.
That will determine the decisions such as (e.g.) whether to remove the "P vs. NP" problem, from the head of the [list] List of unsolved problems in computer science -- as well as (obviously) whether to make some changes to this (" P = NP problem") article.
Depending upon how that decision goes, I think the link that I entered today, during my FIRST edit today, might be needed somewhere -- like, in a footnote (a {{cite web}} citation, e.g.) or in an "External Reference".
Thanks for listening...
Sincerely yours, -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 22:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
On 27 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pieter Nieuwland, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Pieter Nieuwland (pictured), an 18th-century child prodigy and polymath who died a year after becoming a professor, has been called the Dutch Isaac Newton? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pieter Nieuwland. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 16:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
You just reversed what I interpreted as a dismissive personal attack on the Marcel Leroux deletion page. You claimed it was a standard notification. Is there is a list of those someplace? Is there a standard way to dispute those? Is there a reason they are unsigned? If I did such a standard notification back, would there be anything wrong with that? Thanx for any assistance. -- Africangenesis ( talk) 22:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
On 9 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Double bubble conjecture, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the shape that encloses two given volumes and has the minimum possible surface area is the double bubble commonly formed by soap bubbles? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Double bubble conjecture. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 16:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
David,
I wanted to discuss the change I made and you undid on the Taxicab geometry page. You said, in your update comment, that my change "misses the point". I disagree or maybe I just don't understand what you meant.
The caption to the picture is clearly incorrect. It says "Taxicab geometry versus Euclidean distance: In taxicab geometry all four pictured lines have the same length (12) for the same route. In Euclidean geometry, the green line has length 6×√2 ≈ 8.48, and is the unique shortest path." [emphasis added].
Note that the green line in the picture clearly is not length 12. Note also that the green line is not the "same length" as the other three lines. This is made clear by the final sentence of the caption which says that the green line is length 8.48, showing that the Euclidean distance is shorter than the Taxicab distance.
I would also draw your attention to the default description of the graphic which says "Figure illustrating Manhattan verses Euclidean distance. The red, blue, and yellow lines all have the same length (12), whereas the green line has length ." This again makes the distinction between the three lines of equal length (red, blue, yellow) and the green line that is shorter.
I believe that my original edit was correct in amending the caption to reflect the fact the three of the lines are of length 12 while one line, the green one, is shorter. Please help me understand how this is incorrect or misses the point.
Thanks,
- James
James ( talk) 19:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi David, I made a discovery that Dan Martin has recently been given a named chair and the permanent position as CMU's Dean of the Faculty of Fine Arts (it's a college deanship equivalent to Vice Provost most places since there are five schools the report, with departments inside them). I wonder if you'd consider at least the named chair to satisfy PROF#C5? Thanks, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi David!
You did nice work on this graphic. I've used it on 3 articles so far: guitar tunings, major-thirds tuning, and augmented-fourths tuning.
(I might use it on minor-thirds tuning, but that seems to have been used by only William Sethares's guide on alternative tunings. Sethares's BLP could use work.)
Best regards, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
FYI, David. :)
These were created by editor Hyacinth. :) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 12:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 12:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Answer
|
---|
|
I'm seeing a big red TeX error after your recent edit which I can't see how to correct. Is it possible that it's my browser, or maybe a small typo somewhere in there?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 02:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
This renders fine for me as an anonymous user (except it's missing the last two rows from the original). Justin W Smith ( talk) 04:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
With respect I for one find it a lot easier to read the material with the white spaces - at least while in edit mode. Your mileage may differ. DrMicro ( talk) 19:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 03:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I would really like to bring Stefan Banach up to at least GA level and you've been involved in the article in the past, so this is a request for help. Right now, my sense of it is that the article does a pretty good job of providing an overview of Banach's life but is very weak on what his actual contributions to mathematics were. I've began working on the appropriate section but it really has been awhile since I've dealt with this stuff myself so a pair of eyes double checking (if not actively contributing - please do if you can) this expansion would be much appreciated. Thanks! 00:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Northcott's Nim has been PRODed. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
David – Thanks for your work expanding wikipedia's coverage of matroids! This has been sorely needed. (I've been wanting to work on this as well, but as with too many other topics, I've neglected to do so.) I'll try to help by proofreading/copy editing as my time/energy permits. Thanks again, Justin W Smith ( talk) 17:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi David,
Hello.
Please look at this edit. I don't think the phrase "In matroid theory, . . ." succeeds in telling the lay reader what the article is about. "In algebra, . . ." or "In number theory, . . ." or "In differential equations, . . ." does that, but "In matroid theory, . . ." doesn't. Sometimes the article's title is enough and no such phrase need appear; sometimes more is needed. Michael Hardy ( talk) 13:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I am sorry -- I reverted your edit. Is there such a thing as asymptotic-geometry-stub?
Sasha ( talk) 03:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
On 2 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article De Bruijn's theorem, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Nicolas de Bruijn was inspired to prove De Bruijn's theorem on packing bricks into boxes by his seven-year-old son's inability to pack some bricks into a box without wasted space? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/De Bruijn's theorem. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
You boldly intervened and closed the discussion at
Template:Did you know nominations/Orgastic potency. However, your reason for doing so, while ostensibly valid, interrupts an ongoing, constructive, effort to surmount the lingering qualms that have been the obstacles for passing this article sooner. Also note that
User:Yngvadottir is actively part of this discourse and has laid down a considerbale effort in making requisite changes to the article. Yngvadottir who is no stranger to the DYK process by any measure, including its administrative management, is by all accounts still onboard with the drive to make the article presentable. It is therefore additionally unfortunate that you should bypass her presence and authority by closing in rejecting the nomination as you have done. I will as a matter of course respect the closing but I will protest it, even as I have here now, also on the
article's talk page, requesting a mandate for reopening the nomination—as the hatnote instructions given by {{
DYK top}}
provides for. __
meco (
talk) 08:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
You have previously commented on the redirect On the genus of a graph. There have been significant changes, including the target, since the nomination was made. You may wish to revisit the discussion and confirm whether or not your previous views remain unchanged. Having been relisted the discussion is now at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 7. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
On 10 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Prince Rupert's cube, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Prince Rupert's cube, named for Prince Rupert of the Rhine, can pass through a square hole drilled into a smaller cube (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Prince Rupert's cube. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Panyd The muffin is not subtle 00:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
On 10 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Hilliard (artist), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that John Hilliard's Cause of Death (1974) suggested four different interpretations of one photographic negative? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Hilliard (artist). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Yngvadottir ( talk) 08:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
any chance of you un-deleting a page i created? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Att_Will) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Tommy ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi - I've proposed some changes to the article Mohamed El Naschie on the article's talk page. Since you've commented on previous discussions on that page, I'd appreciate your input on this one. All the best, Markus Poessel ( talk) 18:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi David - You're doing some serious work on Pieter Nieuwland's brand new article, even including reading an 18th century eulogy in Dutch! Just FYI, the first three paragraphs of the bio were a translation of the Dutch wikipedia article. For some reason the editor there gave up while Pieter was still in middle school. Good for you finding references for even this text. Let me know if you need help, e.g. with interpreting Dutch. Afasmit ( talk) 22:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I did not agree with you view that my article on Lecythis ampla which I had nominated here at DYK was close paraphrased so I sought views from others. Would you like to look at the nomination again in the light of the changes I have made and their comments, especially those of Choess. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 06:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
On September 3 you closed as rejected Template:Did you know nominations/Orgastic potency. This was an extraordinary nomination that had lingered a very long time. That notwithstanding, I am appealing for it to be reopened on the grounds of its very particular nature, the same grounds which I believe caused reviewing editors for so long to have reservations about substantively assessing the standing of the article. In this context I have pleaded with two involved editors, Yngvadottir and SlimVirgin to intercede. I am still awaiting the response from Yngvadottir. SlimVirgin did decline to intervene though suggesting I made this call to you, the closing admin. So I do. I make the argument that this article, was never given a fair chance due to quesiness among the reviewers, even though the article objectively should have passed a review at an early stage with only minor adjustments. You may want to confine your response to the present section, but if you will you may also want to make a contribution to Talk:Orgastic potency#Premature DYK rejection. __ meco ( talk) 09:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
On 17 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tomahawk (geometry), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a tomahawk may be used to split an angle into three equal parts, despite the impossibility of doing so with compass and straightedge? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tomahawk (geometry). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi David: thank you for this edit to the Hans Lewy entry. Apparently I fell asleep and saved it without a review. Best, Daniele.tampieri ( talk) 11:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
David, this is not my speciality, could you perhaps have a look at this edit? I'm not sure whether this is legit or OR/opinion. Thanks! -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 13:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Dear David: I appreciate your vigilance, but I believe your arguments against the edits mentioned by Guillame2303 are not correct. First, the 485 number is from the referenced MR page. Second, logically, a caveat about all reference list information certainly applies to any one particular reference list bit of information. This particular edit, however, is much less important, I feel, than making sure users know that the MCQ is based on a restricted list of journals. Your help in designing an acceptable addition to the page would be greatly appreciated. Lonmitchell ( talk) 20:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting retention of this article. — Robert Greer ( talk) 13:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The press release linked to, in my 2nd edit today, is a news item that cites the "external link" URL that I added (and you deleted) as my FIRST edit today.
I understand that persons who are way more familiar than I am, with complexity theory, will decide whether it is true that [as the title claims],
Anatoly D. Plotnikov, Professor, Department “Computer Systems and Networks” East-Ukrainian National University, solved the problem “P vs NP”.
That will determine the decisions such as (e.g.) whether to remove the "P vs. NP" problem, from the head of the [list] List of unsolved problems in computer science -- as well as (obviously) whether to make some changes to this (" P = NP problem") article.
Depending upon how that decision goes, I think the link that I entered today, during my FIRST edit today, might be needed somewhere -- like, in a footnote (a {{cite web}} citation, e.g.) or in an "External Reference".
Thanks for listening...
Sincerely yours, -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 22:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
On 27 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pieter Nieuwland, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Pieter Nieuwland (pictured), an 18th-century child prodigy and polymath who died a year after becoming a professor, has been called the Dutch Isaac Newton? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pieter Nieuwland. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 16:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
You just reversed what I interpreted as a dismissive personal attack on the Marcel Leroux deletion page. You claimed it was a standard notification. Is there is a list of those someplace? Is there a standard way to dispute those? Is there a reason they are unsigned? If I did such a standard notification back, would there be anything wrong with that? Thanx for any assistance. -- Africangenesis ( talk) 22:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)