Hi. I reverted your to formal power series because that section in the article does not assume that X is a complex variable or that the series is even convergent. Rather, X is a formal variable, and the series can have its coefficient in any ring, and complex analysis is not applicable except in a very special case of holomorphic functions.
I wonder what you think. You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC) (originally on User:Ivanip's talk page.
Just thought I'd drop you a note to say thank you for your ISBN converting tool. I use it every day and find it quick and useful. Much appreciated. qp10qp 17:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Oleg! It would be a nice thing to try to set some rules concerning notation for the probabilty and expectation symbols. In the various probability/statistics articles I've seen at least three notations: , and finally . Personally, I prefer the latter, as it's the accepted notation of the scientific community (sometimes the letters are bold, i.e. P and E but always straight). I have not seen nevertheless any guide that woud explain such a thing. Is there any way we could make a public discussion about this resulting in some agreement and guide for wikipedia community? Thanks in advance Amir Aliev 21:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Oleg!
Say, I was poking around another 'bot's pages when I ran across this automated message. When I looked at the table I saw that Jitse has updated his 'bot's status, but the entry for Mathbot still says "Discontinued". I know you're busy, so I figure you may not have seen the automated message on Mathbot's talk page. So I'm just giving you a quick heads up.
Thanks for all the great things you do around here! DavidCBryant 02:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed you run a bot in which updates the information and statistics for tables informing users of the number of good articles/featured articles/class A and class B etc articles. I did this once and find it extremely boring and difficult to do and I noticed that your bot updates daily on Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland. Well i would just like to know how I could sign to get this Bot to help, I am the creator of WikiProject Tyne and Wear and I would really like to sign up for this bots help as the job is extremely boring to do manually. Could you please tell me if and how I can sign up for this bots help as soon as possible. Thanks and could you please reply on my talk page. Telly addict Editor review! 12:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg! I was not aware of this guidelines here. Thanks for the tip! I'll be more cautioned in further edits. Bye! Cyb3r 21:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Oleg, please can you read this proposal and leave comments. Perhaps I should've spoken to you quietly first, but there seem to be so many people confused by this, I wanted to get people's opinion. If you think this suggestion is not feasible, or it's too much work, please just say so. I had presumed that it would be pretty straightforward to implement, but please correct me if I'm wrong! Thanks, Walkerma 05:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg: I noticed that both my bot and Betacommandbot posted message that were meant for your bot's talk page on it's userpage. You may want to have User talk:WP 1.0 bot redirect here, instead of to the bot's userpage, to prevent further things like that or confusion if a human editor wants to leave you a message regarding your bot. — METS501 ( talk) 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For your cool WP 1.0 bot. — Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 02:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC) |
Well, I was afraid of that. So is there any fast way to delete a bunch of subpages at once? -- Prove It (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Oleg. Is this bot (WP 1.0 Bot) operated by you? Because I am really curious about this another bot. I know that MathBot is operated by you, but I'm not very familiar with WP 1. 0 Bot. What's the function of WP 1.0 Bot? I really really want to know more about WP 1.0 Bot. Could you please explain this bot(WP 1.0) briefly? Please reply in my talk page. Thanks in advance, and cheers! Daniel5127 | Talk 04:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for quick response. As I have been reading about your bot (WP 1.0 Bot) on WP 1.0 bot, does this bot always updates an assessment on every wiki project? Is it right? Daniel5127 | Talk 04:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I've been reworking the differential and differential (mathematics) pages so that the latter focuses on calculus and geometry concepts. I'd like to move it to differential (calculus), but don't have the admin rights, although I have moved the old differential (calculus) page to differential (infinitesimal). If you agree with my plan, could you do the move for me? I've sorted out most of the links. Geometry guy 20:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Oleg :) I think of you and Fropuff as my (joint) number one friends here on wikipedia! Do you have any comments on my derivative talk contribution? This is an important page and I don't want to damage it! Geometry guy 21:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, I found your tool on several RfA pages, but I can't seem to figure out how to get the edit summary tables that everyone else seems to have. I put my username in the blank form field, and pressed the button, but all it says is that I have 43% for major edits and 34% for minor edits, sans table. - Pandacomics 23:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Shadow. I am getting to like your Perlwikipedia package more and more (the current one I am using, WWW::MediaWiki::Client, has some bugs and things I don't quite like). I wonder if I could join the developer team, that is, if I could get access to the google code page. About my expertise, I've been running mathbot, a Perl bot, for around a year and nine months now (it has around 50,000 edits I think). If you let me in, I'd first focus on improving the documentation, then once you upload the updated code I'll see if I can contribute with anything. Anyway, wonder what you think. Thanks. You can reply here. (PS: My google account is oleg.alexandrov). Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg,
It seems that we all agree that the name of the category is bad. However, some people would like to delete the category while according to their arguments rename should be enough. Theses categories, in what so ever name, are very important. Please help me to prevent the categories deletion.
Thanks, APH 11:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, In Arabic Wikipedia we need WP 1.0 BOT to work there can you give me the Bot to work or make it work there please?? Menasim( discuss) 08:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there an easy way to tell the WP 1.0 bot to count Category:Bplus-Class_mathematics_articles? There is no row in the table for these right now. I read the instructions, but they didn't clarify the matter. CMummert · talk 15:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The generation process for the table is very similar to the WP 1.0 bot; it uses the same framework. The class and importance categories are loaded using query.php (fetch_articles_cats.pl).
The fields are loaded by using query.php to get a list of backlinks to the articles that {{ maths rating}} uses for the field links. I just copied fetch_articles_cats.pl to a new file and edited that to interface with the backlinks query. This isn't guaranteed to be accurate but I think it will be right 99% of the time. CMummert · talk 05:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Oleg!
Hey, I hate to bother you because I know you're a busy guy. Anyway, I was looking at the new articles from Mathbot's list for today when I saw an inappropriate name change (from "Response bias" to "Response Bias"). So I got curious, and noticed that this new user, Megazodiac, has been busily moving properly named articles to improperly capitalized names all day long. Some of Megazodiac's other edits don't look so hot, either. So I'm dropping you a line, since you have a better idea of what to do about stuff like this than I do. Thanks! DavidCBryant 22:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I changed / to ÷ because / looks like a vertical line on my screen (with IE, mostly default settings). I've now changed the division to a Tex-style fraction to make it even more obvious. I hope this is okay! — 80.177.129.251 09:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Isaac Newton generalized the formula to other exponents by considering an infinite series:
where r can be any complex number (in particular r can be any real number, not necessarily positive and not necessarily an integer), and the coefficients are given by
This is the same as \frac{r!}{k!\,(r-k)!}
factorials are defined for ALL complex numbers, except for negative integers
I don't know why you like to remove relevant information, maybe because you like (I do not know for what reason whatsoever) to deny the definition of non-integer factorials!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bombshell 09:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, now I get it, I apologize for being kinda rude Bombshell 16:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg,
I think you were working on the page covering the Erdös-Renyi model? I'm very much interested in the evolution of G~ (which is still to be completed). Is it planned yet? I can't find it anywhere else on the internet.
Best,
Daan
I just discovered that WP 1.0 bot can be run manually. In the changes log for my project, the bot lists assessment updates on a daily basis. So, what happens if I assess some articles, run the bot once, and then assess some more articles and run the bot a second time all in a single day? Would it be two separate headers, or would the bot just add the second round of assessments to the same day's list? I hope I've been clear with this question, it is really late here. Thanks.-- Danaman5 09:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg. I was just curious what happened to this article. Apparently since the first deletion, there was a deletion review and subsequent second AFD. This resulted in keep, but now the article is mysteriously deleted again! What's going on? -- C S (Talk) 01:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is the complete history and log. Hopefully it answers your question. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Deletion log * 08:48, 23 February 2007 Wizardman (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Arthur Mattuck" (recreation of deleted materal (csd g4)) * 20:04, 23 December 2006 Trialsanderrors (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Arthur Mattuck" (9 revisions restored: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 18) * 21:18, 17 December 2006 Yanksox (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Arthur Mattuck" (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Mattuck) To restore the entire page and its history, leave all checkboxes deselected and click Restore. To perform a selective restoration, check the boxes corresponding to the revisions to be restored and click Restore. Clicking Reset will clear the comment field and all checkboxes. Please make sure that you are following undeletion policy and that you leave a summary in the comment box. Comment: Page history * 23:04, 3 February 2007 . . Alaibot (Talk | contribs | block) (Robot: sorting stub (based on existing categorisation)) * 22:37, 28 December 2006 . . 24.177.112.146 (Talk | block) (improve ext link fmting, +cats) * 17:20, 28 December 2006 . . John254 (Talk | contribs | block) (afd closure as keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Mattuck (2nd nomination)) * 20:05, 23 December 2006 . . Trialsanderrors (Talk | contribs | block) (Start AfD per WP:DRV) * 14:47, 15 December 2006 . . Epolk (Talk | contribs | block) (clean up using AWB) * 22:37, 12 December 2006 . . Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs | block) (afd) * 20:51, 12 December 2006 . . Bcartolo (Talk | contribs | block) (added hangon) * 20:49, 12 December 2006 . . Adam12901 (Talk | contribs | block) * 20:47, 12 December 2006 . . Bcartolo (Talk | contribs | block) (External links) * 20:46, 12 December 2006 . . Bcartolo (Talk | contribs | block) * 20:44, 12 December 2006 . . Bcartolo (Talk | contribs | block) * 20:44, 12 December 2006 . . Bcartolo (Talk | contribs | block) (External links) * 20:43, 12 December 2006 . . Bcartolo (Talk | contribs | block) (←Created page with 'Arthur Mattuck is a Professor of Mathematics at [MIT]. ==External links== *[[http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Mathematics/18-03Spring-2006/VideoLectures/index.htm Differen...')
I have a question about Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Numismatic articles by quality statistics. Pages in this project now have a category class, template, dab, etc. These new classes can be found at Category:WikiProject Numismatics articles. Do you think you can upgrade the bot to identify these classes? Thanks. -- ChoChoPK (球球PK) ( talk | contrib) 08:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Oleg, I have a bit modified the plan of the "Bounded variation" voice, and I have placed it on the discussion page. Also, Sullivan.t.j have added some interesting contents. I found also that our first discussion about this voice in your talk page has disappeared: are you reordering your user talks? :) Daniele.tampieri 11:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. I don't think that I'm ready to do that just yet; the WP:RFA process currently seems to favor editors who do lots of vandalism editing over people who would only occasionally need admin abilities. And like getting tenure, passing an RFA seems to require spending a long time before it hiding one's true opinions and making everyone happy, which I have not been doing. I will be applying for a bot account soon; that at least seems like a rational approval process, and will be much more useful for me. CMummert · talk 13:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Oleg. I have noticed User:Arcfrk, who appears to be new and someone worth making friends with. I don't know how those magical welcome messages appear on new users' talk pages, but I've seen you leave a few. If you get a second, you might pop by his site and say hello. (By the way, can anyone leave those welcome messages or is this some kind of admin thing?) VectorPosse 10:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I have a question of interest, but of little importance: why does WP 1.0 bot report one article in Category:Unassessed-importance Arthropods articles in its summary, when that category has been empty for days? -- Stemonitis 12:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I went tinkering around with the Rock music articles by quality statistics, as someone added a list parameter to the {{ WPRock}} template. This sorts list articles into Category:List-Class rock music articles/ The bot went and made this edit, removing that parameter from the stats. Is there a way to correct this? *May I also ask that you respond on MY talk page? -- Reaper X 16:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi!
Thanks for going over the page on the shifted Gompertz distribution. As it is my first Wikipedia contribution, I guess that other things might be improved as well. If you have any suggestions, please don't hesitate to let me know!
Best Regards,
Daniel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danhoppe ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
I have suggested that Manual of style (mathematics), a redirect page which you created, be deleted as a cross-namespace redirect. If you would like to comment in the discussion, it is found here. -- Black Falcon 00:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I was going to ask Gurch ( talk · contribs) about this, but it seems that he has left us. Is there a process for finding lost pages, such as: pages with improper names, or pages which are not in a category? I was wondering about this because it appears that InuYasha has had its name changed (probably at least twice) in the past and its talk page, Talk:InuYasha, has archives with names like "2004" which do not show up when I do "What links here". Could there be lost archives out there? They also did not have the "talkarchive" template in them until I added it a few days ago. JRSpriggs 06:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Just curious, why is the bot running ever second day and not daily? =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Vandal Fbs. 13 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) moved his user and talk pages to Derecho ( talk · contribs). Is this not a violation of the rules? This was not a change in his user-id, just a page move. JRSpriggs 07:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
"And for example, woman should be out, even though a woman has a monthly cycle." LOL. I did really laugh out loud. -- C S (Talk) 13:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Cheers for all the links on my talkpage, I definately do need to improve my wiki style a bit, I have not done lots of edits on this wiki yet, but I am very keen to learn.
Reaction diffusion is definately one of my biggest interests. I am a programmer though, on the visual-synthesis side of things - not a mathematician, so I probably take a slightly less technical angle on RD than most people who know it.
I was a bit disappointed to see how small the article was so I added a bit more basic info. I also have some original images that I can upload too which I will do soon.
Thanks again for noticing. ( Danwills 06:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC))
Hi Oleg,
I think your change to the article is good, but I should probably rename it Field (algebra) now. Also, skew fields are sometimes just called fields and are a very slight generalization of fields, so there is some likelihood that a person will refer to the field article thinking that, since a skew field is almost the same thing, there must not be an article on skew fields, and they won't bother referring to the disambiguation page. So I think skew fields should be mentioned despite the existence of a disambiguation page. What do you think? Joeldl 02:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg.
Thank you for the "Welcome" message (on my talk page).
Yes, now I have a question. I volunteered a new page Large deviations of Gaussian random functions. It got the tag "need to be wikified". I did some improvements toward this. Now, is it already wikified? Should I remove the tag myself, or not?
Boris Tsirelson 12:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg,
I was the Anonymous Calculus d-Erector before, and I'm sorry for the mass editing. I have reformed, created an acct, and posted my views on Talk:Integral.
Sorry I never read the policies and I hope to be more constructive in future. Thanks for the time! :)
Dear Oleg!
Thank you for your invitation. I've been contributing in Polish branch of Wikipedia ( [2]) since May 2006. When I found an article about a Probabilistic metric space in English Wiki I thought about supplementing it with some information about a metric that was a subject of my PhD thesis.
Funny thing is that it can hardly be called a "metric" as it does not fulfill the first metric axiom, which is in fact the only axiom to be required by other distance functions I know (pseudometric, quasimetric, prametric, ultrametric, etc.).
-- Guswen 14:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Oleg. Thanks for visiting my newly created article on Diagrammatic notation and thanks for correcting the naming problem. You suggested something in the editing history. Something about style. Thanks. Would you mind helping me with my first article? -- Freiddie 14:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this is/was a interesting argument because it assumes less on the reader.
But most importantly:
It seems that in some of the proofs the writers didn't realized that you can only proof this identity after you clearly defined what e^(ix) means.
In this sense arguments like the ones in "using calculus" and "using differential equations" are incomplete, without at least a clear definition any argument becomes an heuristic argument.
I know of three ways of defining e^(ix).
(1) From the complex series of e^(z) defined as sum of z^n/n!
(2) as the limit of n to infinity of (1 + ix/n)^n
(3) or directly as cos(x) + i sin(x)
Either way only after defining e^(ix) is that you should show that it has the properties like e^(ia)*e^(ib)=e^(i(a+b)), or (e^ix)'=ie^(ix) that you would expect it to have, and some writers used fearlessly.
Number (1) is already represented, I think number (2) would be a nice thing to cite since it is analogous to the real case and can also be interpreted geometrically (as Richard Feynman does for a reference). But using (3) is totally misleading because it doesn't show why it should be true.
That is why I think heuristic arguments are needed to provide "a reason" for us to believe that such a thing should be true. Using circular motion seems to me much more simple and much less "out of the blue" then for example the "using calculus" approach.
My opinion is that Euler's formula is central to many different contexts and any effort to make it clearer is for the best. I will also post this on the discussion on the page.
Do you have something to comment on that? Thank You. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ricardo sandoval ( talk • contribs) 22:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
I started a discussion about his RfA usefulness at WT:RFA#Mathbot..., and I thought as the operator you might be interested. Please weigh in, and whack me if there's something obvious I missed. - Amarkov moo! 03:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg - you liked Derivative before. I hope you still like it!! Comments and criticism most welcome as always. Geometry guy 18:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - and thanks for your tidying up! Geometry guy 19:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
There's been a request to archive some of the talk page (up to the GA-discussion). I'm going to give it a go soon: I guess I just create an archive subpage, move the material there, and provide a link. I thought I would mention this to my "mentor", just in case I make a mess of it! Geometry guy 20:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've done the archiving (though not in any fancy way, as there is just one archive page). Take it easy on Oleg - his energies are just spread a bit thinly these days ;-) Thanks for the kind comments. Looks like I ought to click on your link. Geometry guy 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Well I was just teasing :) , but in addition to the above, Oleg put the welcome message on my page, and I have turned to him for his admin rights at least once, so I owe him some respected title, beyond that guy with the bot ;) ! Anyway, I'm now on the list (I saw it before, but my commitment was not as strong then) and am having fun here. I hope you two established editors are too! Geometry guy 21:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This made me laugh a lot! Anyway, esteemed mentor, I just produced a Power rules article only to find you removed proof of functional power rule from Wikipedia:Requested articles/mathematics on the grounds that it is not important :( - I hope you are not too displeased that I made an article anyway! ;)
In the course of doing this, I realised that base (mathematics) (which was previously, and is probably still, a redirect to radix) is flawed because it does not cover the fundamental notion of "base" as the base of exponentiation and the base of a logarithm. Unfortunately, the base/radix story seems to have history, so I have been facing nearly instantantaneous reverts whenever I try to do something... wish me luck! Geometry guy 20:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, absolute power rules, absolutely, rather than just an article on the proof (I agree entirely) so that is what I did. As for base, it seems to have settled down, but I'll certainly consider raising it at WP:talk if it becomes controversial. Geometry guy 12:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
See 128.97.70.46 ( talk · contribs). Regards, alphachimp 20:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Oleg. Sorry to bug you again, but you have the magic wand. ;^>
I think Receiver Operating Characteristic should be named Receiver operating characteristic. Unfortunately, there are real articles at both locations. It looks as if Indon did a cut and paste job after a merge, instead of using the "move" function (this occurred on 31 Jan, 2007).
Anyway, now the article is not connected with its history page. Can you fix that? Thanks! DavidCBryant 13:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I am a bit confused, because I've never copy-pasted. I did surely move the article, but dunno why it looks that way. However, thanks for the clear up. — Indon ( reply) — 17:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi!
seems that "Failed to get the link!" is some error for user Evgen2 at ru.wikipedia.org. Thanks. -- Evgen2 07:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I am new to Wickipedia contribution and I was not aware of the policy that material should have been published in well recognized journals. My contribution was made in good faith with a view to benefit the readers and enhance the value of Wickipedia. Now I know the policy of Wickipedia, and in this case it is likely to be a limitation of Wickipedia. You can read an expert review of my work here: http://www.integralresearch.net/#Expert_Review . Please see page 4 here which establishes the link between standard integral equations and Rao Integral Equations: http://www.integralresearch.net/wps.pdf . It is easily verified. As for naming my result, if my result is very important, then it is appropriate, and I believe it to be so. I am confident that my results will become "well established" in time. I am not in any hurry. I have protected my idea by applying for US patents. In public interest, in order to evaluate the correctness of my idea, if any qualified person volunteers to verify my results on behalf of Wickipedia, I can send one copy of my book free. But you can get a lot of information on my approach here: http://www.integralresearch.net/RTslides.pdf http://www.integralresearch.net/wps.pdf http://www.integralresearch.net/apex.pdf
Lastly, if someone shows that my new method of solution to solve the Fredholm Equation of the First Kind when applied to shift-variant image deblurring is not better than current methods, I will give them $250.
If you volunteers are serious about enhancing Wickipedia, you should restrict your comments to technical merits of my idea and point out technical weaknesses. Keeping the interests of Wickipedia and the users in mind, you can decide whether your want to post my method or not, is upto you.
I appreciate the voluntary service your are rendering to the public. Dr. Muralidhara SubbaRao (Rao) rao@integralresearch.net —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.47.184.148 ( talk) 23:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
Is there any chance that the WP1.0 bot could add the user that made the change when it produces an assessment log?
-- TimNelson 01:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out that preference. I did not know about it. Danny 03:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
More ideas:
-- TimNelson 09:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
There seems to have gone something wrong in creating the log for the biography project on 1 April. See here. Er rab ee 19:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Why did you remove the reference to the Geometric Programming tutorial on the posynomial page? Johngcarlsson 08:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johngcarlsson ( talk • contribs) 08:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
Hi Oleg --
I just redesigned the differential algebra page, incorporating the material from derivation (abstract algebra). I think it makes sense to redirect the search for derivation (abstract algebra) to differential algebra. Can you help?
Jessica —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shellgirl ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
Thanks! And you are welcome, it was fun. Shellgirl 04:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just posted a comment on the talk page for the wallpaper gallery that (apparently) you wrote a bot for, and I'd like you to read that comment; to summarize, I suggest a method for that category where it's easy to suggest someone remove an img w/o having to muck about understanding how to edit the gallery myself. Sure, perhaps I should, but I won't. It's my personal opinion that the users / creators of a bot should be responsible for the content it generates, including removing inappropriate additions, but that's just mho. I'm sure this has all been discussed to death somewhere around here, but I'm not the kind of editor who cares about that sort of thing. Just offering my 0.02USD, pls have a look at the talk page (sry no link, but it's very late for me :) if you would, but no reply to me is necessary, however you decide to respond to this. Unless you feel like replying on my talk page, anyways, I'm too lazy to check back here. :) BTW, great work, keep it up. Eaglizard 10:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Whould you please update this page [ [3]] with the bot from this day on. Thanks. -- Bohater 13:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
In regards to the two articles: Approximation error and Percent difference. If you read Percent difference, you would then have understood how there could possible be a difference between finding the "percent error" of two values, and finding the "percent difference" between two values. They do have two different English terms for a reason and I know from experience that these two techniques are repeatedly thought of as the same thing. This is an Unofficial Warning that you cannot just remove tags, or worse yet, DELETE an entire article without some sort of consensus. I look forward to discussing the matter with you and others. Gilawson 02:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, and I take your comment in the spirit it was offered. I detest, yet cannot help but acknowledge, the requirements of political practicality. I would be only too glad to adhere to them were I conducting actual affairs of state, but something in me always screams 'It's just Wikipedia!' I am devoted to this project, but it is still just an encyclopedia project, and not a body politic. It can only suffer from taking itself too seriously. Perhaps my choice to carry out the promotion myself in this instance was an instance of upholding a principle to my own detriment; but I maintain that the decision was not just my own, and moreover that it was entirely justified. These facts belie any appearance of conflict of interest. I suppose I am, in this very trivial sense, an obstinate idealist; yet I do appreciate your advice. This may not be a battle worth fighting. — Dan | talk 06:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I support your comment to
Talk:Cubic equation, Complete formula. Please draw your attention to my discussion commencing with ˝The schoolbook lecture..˝ where, in my opinion, few significant unrevealed contributions are described. But, as a beginner in Wikipedia editing, I have no idea how to paste drawings and tables originally designed by means of Microsoft Equation 3.0, Word Drawing tool, and Excel (for example 3×3 and 4×4 determinants aren't presented at La Tex). I squandered days, nights and nerves editing these abstracts as such. Therefore I am forced to ask you as an administrator for the advice how and whether to proceed.
Besides the determinants Primeval Cubic should be emphasized i.e. find its place at main article since it enables graphical resolving achieved by means of simple shifting straight line(s) and Y-axis as well as since it simplifies application of hyperbolic and trigonometric substitutions.
Regards Mladen Stambuk
89.111.255.142
07:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to your advice. Meanwhile few improvements of the abstracts are worked out (see 6. All complete roots...). I am surprised that you found my complete formula (20) in comparison to (8) of main article (that is not complete) to be too complicated. Also my formula (21,2) should be compared to one quoted under Factorization.
I hoped everyone could recognize significance of Primeval Cubic 4x3 ± 3x = h being actually Embryonic one making f.e. Chebyshev radicals to be unneeded. As an aged (68) beginner I don't know how to make an account and why it would be simpler for me f.e. to draw Cubic parabola and straight lines - let me know contacts in this area. Cheers Mladen
89.111.253.80
22:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
As someone who has contributed to the talk page discussion on List of publications in philosophy and/or that article's previous deletion debate, I thought you might be interested in participating in its new nomination for deletion which can be found here. Thanks. - KSchutte 17:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome you sent, evidently in response to my editing of the "reflexive space" page. Wikipedia is something I find myself using with increasing frequency, and I've decided to express my gratitude through contribution. One's gotta start somewhere. -- J.G. Gagelman 14:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Oleg, the 1.0 bot hasn't updated Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Harry Potter articles by quality log in 5 days. Is this hiatus expected or is it just being slow? Best, Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 01:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution to Category:Systems in the past. There is currently a Call for Deletion for this category. If you would like to contribute to the discussion, you would be very welcome. In particular, if you would like to save this category, please add a Keep entry with your "signature" using "~~~~". Please do this soon if possible since the discussion period is very short. Thank you for your interest if you can contribute. Regards, Jonathan Bowen 18:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg,
Thanks for your welcome message. Thanks for your welcome message. I am a long time user of e-mail and usenet, but have some trouble adjusting to the talk pages system. Can you give me any advice? Grotendeels Onschadelijk 03:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg
You might want to fix Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. It lists both WP:Universitites and WP:University. One is an incomplete duplicate of the other. Happy editing. Valentinian T / C 10:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg
I hope you agree there is nothing objectionable about listing the number of known digits of the important mathematical constants. You left your note on my talk page after I added the references. Are there still open issues? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rbk ( talk • contribs).
I left a note on the talk page. Am I supposed to leave a note here as well? People have reverted my stuff without any notes to me at all. I'm fairly new and just trying to follow the crowd. It can be very frustrating sometimes. -- Jim77742 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg,
I've just corrected the
Stern-Brocot tree article to point at
Moritz Stern instead of (incorrect) Moriz Stern. So now you can remove Moriz Stern form the
Mathbot's collection of red links. --
CiaPan
18:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, firstly thank you for including Wikiproject Townsville in your bot's work of compiling stats. Secondly, if you can, could you please add a lists column to the Townsville articles by quality statistics template and add it to your bot's program for automatic updates? Thanks, Alec -( answering machine) 08:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Hi Alec. Unfortunately the bot does not support lists and other columns beyond the default. The reason is that bot's purpose is to evaluate articles only by quality and importance, and any changes to the current way of doing things should be coordinated with all the other projects. Perhaps you could use the example of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics (see that page, towards the bottom) which uses its own bot to generate a statistics table specific to its own needs and distinct from the default table? Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 15:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, the {{ WikiProject Russia}} currently puts articles in e.g. Category:Stub-Class russia articles. Note the small cap r in russia. If I wanted to change that, would you need to do something to WP1.0 bot so that the articles do not all appear in the Category:Unassessed-Class russia articles? Er rab ee 13:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea, but the recently created {{ TOClimit}} can now do it automatically with CSS trickery (the RfA TOC is running limited-to-3 at the moment, although it doesn't actually make any difference). So it seems that Mathbot's busy on a task that's now redundant (sorry for pre-empting your bot's work, I appreciate it and Mathbot's RfA edit-summary-usage-summary is a welcome addition to my watchlist). I just thought you might want to know... -- ais523 16:36, 20 April 2007 ( U T C)
Hi,
While I agree that the links were perhaps in the wrong section, I do think they are very helpful, especially to people that have large non-linear non-convex problems, which Maple/Mathematica are not very good at.
Could you please return the links? Probably the right place to put them would be external links.
Thank you,
Domagoj
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.189.141.19 ( talk) 18:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
Your Mathbot's tool does not seem to be working. This is the one that shows edit summary usage based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits. Simply south 22:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
i guess it really doesnt matter what it should look like; its just I'm a little OCD and i like everything to be perfect looking :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaxha ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
Mathbot is also used to maintain lists of 'what is missing from this category' on several articles, ex. list of szlachta (using this script). I couldn't find a 'how-to' (even through I probably found it years ago). Do you know where it is? We should add it to the bot user page... That said, usage is simple: add the above script targeting the talk page (with _ instaed of spaces), and follow instruction it leaves. Btw, can you add a switch that would make the bot look through *all* subcategories? I want to use it to check what articles on list of subject topics are not categorized in that subject fields, and this may be quite tiresome if I have to add every subcategory manually...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Oleg, thanks for inviting me to engage in discussion. My mother did some consulting for Encyclopedia Britannia back in the 1990's and I've been an encyclopedia aficionado for decades, so it's time for me to get serious about learning the Wiki-ropes and engaging in debate.
I created two articles yesterday but I have been able to find only one of them typing the name of each article into the "FIND" search box. Can you explain why this might be happening?
The two articles are: Hajo Holborn and Medal of Liberty. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dfloren1 ( talk • contribs) 19:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
Oleg, if you want to look at the Medal of Liberty page, it is accessible by typing the URL into your browser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Liberty
or clicking on a link at the bottom of the Hanna Holborn Gray page.
Yet, the article can not be found using the main "FIND" search box.
I'd say this was odd, but everything has its reason, however obscured from my feeble understanding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dfloren1 ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
Hi Oleg. I noticed this article showed up in the categories 3-manifolds and Geometric Topology. I don't believe this incident concerns papers actually in these areas (definitely not the former, and at best only arguably in the latter). I also don't believe it's helpful to put this kind of article in what is primarily a category for mathematics articles. For people, we have the relevant specialist categories. This article is clearly an oddball, but I would suggest some other math category (perhaps to be created) would be more relevant. -- C S (Talk) 22:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, could you move Fermat's Last Theorem to Fermat's last theorem over a redirect. The page was originally there, but was moved to the current location to reflect the dominant capitalization used in the article. However, I have fixed this now, following WP and WP Mathematics conventions. I would do it myself but there is one entry in the target page history, so it needs an admin. I will be happy to fix any redirects. Geometry guy 21:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought you might agree on this! Geometry guy 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Now for something else that is on my mind...
I visited this page recently and was surprised by what I found. This page should be a clear summary of what the project is about and how to contribute, but it didn't help me much when I first arrived, and it still isn't as helpful as it could be. Two issues:
Geometry guy 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I've made a fairly conservative update. More could be done, but I agree that more substantial changes should be discussed on the talk page first. I also updated the list of mathematics articles. Geometry guy 18:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Etc. -- Thus Spake Anittas 08:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It does not seem to be working again and for the past few hours has been showing whichever users' edit summary usage to be 0 based on the las 0 major edits and 0 minor edits. Simply south 18:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
|
Thank you, Oleg Alexandrov, for your support on my recent RfA, which recently passed 54/1/1. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations. I will certainly take the constructive criticism I recieved to heart. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. Thank you again· -- Selket Talk 18:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC) |
Their band got back in 2006 and I think that you should write that. I also think that you should write about the awards that they won and put some images in there. This page sucks!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.186.72.97 ( talk) 04:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
Thanks didn't know about links on disambiguation pages. Makes sense though. Strawberry Island 15:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks, Oleg. It's nice to know that my edits are helping. Cheers, Doctormatt 20:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Oleg, I would like to add a comparison plot of the Lebesgue functions for uniform grid points and Chebyshev points to the Lebesgue constant (interpolation) page. I have generated a figure using MATLAB but am unsure of how to upload it and specify licensing. I wish to make it public domain. Is there any problem with having used a commercial product to produce the plot? What export format should I use also? SVG, does not seem to work for exporting. Thanks!
Gregvw 09:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
print('-dpng', '-r300', 'my_picture.png');
print('-deps', '-r300', 'my_picture.eps');
Hi Oleg Alexandrov,
I was looking through some of PDFbot's recent edits when I came across one where PDFbot was hopelessly confused. It was an edit made to Thailand on the 6th reference ( here is a direct link).
The problem here is not PDFbot, but rather a compounding of vandalism that has gone unnoticed. As you can see, reference 6 is very incoherent.
I tried sleuthing through the page's history, but for some of the damage (like the word "onouioioo"), it is not clear where it was introduced; the damage must have been introduced a long time ago.
Do you know of any good tools that would help me fix this part of Thailand? « D. Trebbien ( talk) 20:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, you welcomed me very early on in my Wikipedia involvement when I didn't even know how to respond☺! Thank you very much for this; it made me feel like I was "part of the team". Now I help to welcome others. « D. Trebbien ( talk) 20:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, I started a discussion at the mathematics project talk page concerning semiprotecting the article Geometry, which is vandalised so often that it's nearly not being developed at all (the tally of productive edits out of the last 100 edits is 2 major edits, 3 minor edits, 2 bot link additions, the rest is vandalism, cranks, and reverts). The majority of the responses were in favour of semiprotection, with the exception of CMummert, who offered an admin perspective against it. I was wondering what you think about this, and if you agree with protection argument, whether you can use your awesome administrative powers to effect it. Thank you very much! Arcfrk 21:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Since I'm reverting your edits, in one case again and for the same reason; please do not blank page multiple times for the same reason without discussion- obviously someone disagreed with your blunt assessment and choice to simply remove content. the reason, as placed in the history previously, is that it is no less unencyclopeadic than one half or a list of quarter terms. further, and this may be a function of not being a native english speaker, but a unilateral declaration of "does not deserve its own article" comes across as unnecessarilly abrasive and arrogant- especially when it explicitly ignores edit history.
cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darker Dreams ( talk • contribs) 21:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
Hi Oleg :) Could you move bilinear operator to bilinear map, which is currently a redirect, but has a (very short) edit history? I think there is consensus for such a move (the new name is less ambiguous, cf. binary operation, and more consistent with related articles). Thanks - Geometry guy 19:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Oleg ;)
I am trying to revive the Collaboration of the Week I am hitting everybody on the WP:WPM with this "I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks-- Cronholm144 23:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)" and sometimes a personal message. Input would be appreciated
Many thanks, Oleg. I needed that! :)
Hi Oleg Thx for your notes, of course you are right about the style, but I don't understand some content changes you have made:
(:-_) Adam majewski 16:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The degree of a rational function is the maximum of the degrees of its constituent polynomials P and Q.
It is from wikipedia article about rational function section complex analysis -- Adam majewski 20:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, User:Cronholm144 has just pointed out to me an erratic change in the behaviour of Minestrone. He was editing as normal up to 06:55 this morning, then did not contribute again until 16:50, since when his only actions have been to blank his own user and talk pages with offensive edit summaries, and leave offensive messages on the talk page of User:ArnoldReinhold: see [4]. He has never left messages on this user's talk page before (or vice-versa as far as I can tell). They interacted recently on Trigonometry, but I see no sign of an edit conflict, just a few attempts each to improve the article. Cronholm thinks that Minestrone's account has been compromised and wonders how to proceed. My only thought is to warn ArnoldReinhold that this might not be Minestrone, and to keep an eye on the account for further abuse, but I'd be glad for the input of an experienced admin! Geometry guy 20:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey Oleg do you know who designed the Maths rating's templates for WP 1.0, I am trying to help out [5] Anton with his attempt to synthesize the WP:Numbers project template with the math template, but he is having some problems. All he needs is to be pointed in the right direction, thanks-- Cronholm144 22:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha, who knew? I didn't ask you because I had been spamming you with my blather on your talk page so much recently, but it looks like it always comes right back to you;)-- Cronholm144 23:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. sorry Oleg it looks like I have begun to monopolise on your talk page as well
my friend:
How do you type in mathematics on the page? Can you type mathematics in an email?
---jesusonfire
Depending on your computer's operating system, there might be various applications you can use that will take TeX code in an email and with a simple click convert it into an embedded image (PNG, PDF, etc.). I only know about the ones for OS X, like Equation Service. -- C S (Talk) 09:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Oleg,
In view of the known identity abuses at WP, an user who wishes to remain anon (which they do for their own benefit) should not venture into questionable edits. I think this could be a self-enforced rule, for fairness. I am reverting the rating anyway because I don't agree with it. Hope this is useful. Edgerck 07:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
Oleg Alexandrov has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Love, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
Congratulations Oleg!-- Cronholm144 00:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg,
You recently posted a brief message on my talk page welcoming me, and also praising the utility of the Edit Summary. I'm curious as to whether there is a specific context in which I displayed ignorance of this particular marvel of collaborative editing, or if it was just a general proviso :D.
Regards,
Alex —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexander.fairley ( talk • contribs).
Oleg You complain about links to mathopenref. The reason the material is not in Wikipedia itself is that I use Java animations a lot, and when I put them in wikipedia pages they are deleted because Java applets are not approved. So what should I do? I am certainly not a commercial venture ( I wish it were so). I stand to gain no commercial value from my work.
Perhaps there are too many links. I will remove some a cut down to just a few. But my intentions are simply to add value.
Perhaps we should all should start to think about how to move Wikipedia math articles beyond just static text and on to the next stage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.151.150 ( talk • contribs).
Thanks. Yes, I meant the Laplace-de Rham operator. Sorry for not making it clear. Tiphareth 09:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
"≤" can be confusing for a preorder that is not anti-symmetric, it may suggest that a ≤ b implies that a < b or a = b.-- Patrick 00:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi... Mathbot seems to be missing the first AFD on the day log when it updates Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old. E.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 19's first AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camerupt, which is still open, but isn't showing up. This is also happening with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly, Do You Want to Know a Secret?. If this helps, DFBot's script at User:Dragons flight/AFD summary/All recognizes them, but doesn't seem to parse them correctly. Hopefully this is easy to fix, if not I'll make a note for closers to manually check to make sure the first AFD has been closed before removing a day from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old. -- W.marsh 13:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
There are two definitions of infinite sequence in Wikipedia which are not equivalent: a function from {1, 2, ...} to S, and one where an infinite number of terms are non-zero. Either one should be changed, or at least this should be pointed out. Please do not obstruct finding a solution for this.-- Patrick 07:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Have you ever investigated why the version of WWW:MediaWiki:Client in the WP 1.0 bot setup fails to edit articles that have been deleted? I don't want to start looking into it if you know that it's a hopeless cause. CMummert · talk 01:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
--- Client.pm.b2 2007-05-27 00:22:25.000000000 -0400 +++ Client.pm 2007-05-27 00:29:05.000000000 -0400 @@ -91,6 +91,7 @@ use constant EDIT_SUBMIT_NAME => 'wpSave'; use constant EDIT_SUBMIT_VALUE => 'Save Page'; use constant EDIT_TIME_NAME => 'wpEdittime'; +use constant EDIT_STARTTIME_NAME => 'wpStarttime'; use constant EDIT_TOKEN_NAME => 'wpEditToken'; use constant EDIT_WATCH_NAME => 'wpWatchthis'; use constant EDIT_MINOR_NAME => 'wpMinoredit'; @@ -591,6 +592,8 @@ my $url = $self->_filename_to_action_url($filename); my $ref = $self->_get_ref_filename($filename); my $edit_time = $self->{server_date}; + my $start_time = $self->{server_start_date}; + my $edit_token = $self->{server_token}; # take field names from defined constants my $textbox = TEXTAREA_NAME; @@ -598,6 +601,7 @@ my $subname = EDIT_SUBMIT_NAME; my $subvalue = EDIT_SUBMIT_VALUE; my $timename = EDIT_TIME_NAME; + my $starttime_name = EDIT_STARTTIME_NAME; my $tokenname = EDIT_TOKEN_NAME; my $watchbox = EDIT_WATCH_NAME; print { $self->{debug_fh} } " to $url.\n"; @@ -607,6 +611,7 @@ $comment => $self->{commit_message}, $subname => $subvalue, $timename => $edit_time, + $starttime_name => $start_time, $tokenname => $edit_token, # $watchbox => 1, ] @@ -624,6 +629,7 @@ my $doc = $res->content; my $text = $self->_get_wiki_text($doc); $self->{server_date} = $self->_get_edit_date($doc); + $self->{server_start_date} = $self->_get_start_date($doc); $self->{server_token} = $self->_get_edit_token($doc); return $text; } @@ -649,6 +655,19 @@ return $date; } +sub _get_start_date { + my ($self, $doc) = @_; + my $p = HTML::TokeParser->new(\$doc); + my $date = 0; + while (my $tag = $p->get_tag('input')) { + next unless $tag->[1]->{type} eq 'hidden'; + next unless $tag->[1]->{name} eq 'wpStarttime'; + $date = $tag->[1]->{value}; + } + return $date; +} + + sub _get_edit_token { my ($self, $doc) = @_; my $p = HTML::TokeParser->new(\$doc);
This is awesome! I've been hating this bug for a couple of years now. I'd suggest you submit the bug fix to Mark Jaroski, the author of WWW-Mediawiki-Client. I dealt with him in the past, he's a very nice guy and will be happy to accept the bug fix.
By the way, is the patch against the newest version, 0.31, of the client? Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 16:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. I'm having trouble getting perlwikipedia to work correctly. I put a request in at User talk:Shadow1/perlwikipedia#More tech support. If you could look it over, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 14:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be a useful and needed list: any chance you could ask your friend Mathbot to update it regularly (say once a week)? Geometry guy 20:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
That is what interests me, yes, but I'm not sure about other users. How about updating the big picture once a month? Geometry guy 23:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Oleg, I unknowingly reversed your reversal of the notation for partial derivatives. It is my understanding that the subscript closest to the function name is the first derivative taken. For example, in you first differentiate wrt x and then wrt y. Perhaps we should open this up to discussion? Jhausauer 21:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey Oleg, I saw your nice additions to neighbourhood. Could you do something similar for Codomain and Image (mathematics). I added my weak attempt to their respective talk pages, but it is not nearly article quality. If you don't have time I completely understand. Also, what is the name of the software you use to create those images, I would like to become a math wikifairy if I can. Thanks -- Cronholm144 03:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I should read before I speak... inkscape, thanks muchly!-- Cronholm144 03:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll work with both, thanks for the help. :)-- Cronholm144 03:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's number one, but you can see the problem. The text doesn't render(at least for me). I released it under GFDL so I think you can edit it. I also put jpeg version on the Image (mathematics) talk page. Cheers and thanks for the pointers.-- Cronholm144 05:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much, I'll do so now :) -- Cronholm144 09:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've filled in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/David Eppstein. If you have any feedback for me, something you think should be changed in my answers before it gets submitted, please let me know; otherwise, you can go ahead and submit it. I'm going to be traveling next week, though, so if my active participation in the debate would be required it might be better to wait until the following week. — David Eppstein 07:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Using Danny's RfA as something to compare with is probably not a good idea. That one introduced the inovative idea of bureaucrat chat (thanks to Taxman), but overall could have been handled much better I think. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 16:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I've started to remove links to existing articles at Wikipedia:Missing science topics before I noticed that it used to be done by Mathbot some time ago. There are plenty of blue links at math topics so I was wondering if the bot is going to go through these lists again? Jogers ( talk) 18:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your welcome message and for the good format you have done on the article. I am a french teacher beginning on the english wikipedia and my syntax is not very sure. So thanks again for all your work. Have a good day. ENRGO 10:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Oleg,
Thanks for your kind message regarding my first post (Differential Equation -- 20th Century Uses). I am a lecturer at Northeastern University in Boston in the School of Continuing and Professional Studies and at Endicott College (communication). I hope to make some useful contributions to Wikipedia regarding mathematics, computers, robotics, information theory, telecommunications and intelligent agents, which are my areas of interest.
Best wishes,
Andrew Spano
Hi Oleg. In your last edit summary for Neighborhood (mathematics), you asked about deleted neighborhoods. I have heard this term before, and a quick Google Books search confirms that there are references for this usage. (It seems to be more common in complex analysis than in topology, though.) VectorPosse 18:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I have responded to your threats about the infimum limits and supremum limits. I made the trivial change that you requested and responded to your concerns in the discussion. Please review. I hope this is to your satisfaction. -- TedPavlic 13:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Oops -- sorry. I'll try to remember to be more formal; thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbarth ( talk • contribs)
I am having problems with query.php. For example I can't load the contents of 'Category:Stub-Class mathematics articles'. I get the error pi_badpageids, which is interesting because I can't find that string anywhere in the source. Have you run into this with WP 1.0 bot? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 16:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I verified with [6] that this affects WP 1.0 bot as well - it says it fails to fetch the second continuation of Category:Stub-Class mathematics articles until it gives up on the 10th attempt and moves on to the next continuation. If you find anything out, please let me know. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 21:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No, Oleg, I am afraid you are wrong, you have missed a subtle point. The way it is explained on the page, it says that the distance from one equivalence class to another is defined BECAUSE THE REAL NUMBERS ARE COMPLETE. But how can you use the completenesss of the real numbers to prove that the completion of the rationals is the real numbers? I certainly agree that once the real numbers are known to be complete, then one can use the more straightforward procedure to perform the completion of any other metric space. But you can NOT use the completeness of the real numbers in CONSTRUCTING the real numbers. This is why I made the remark about "avoiding circularity". The right way is to define the equivalence relation using the zero distance relation to put sequences in the equivalence class (and then, in the case of completing the rationals, strictly speaking, one should prove that the set of equivalence classes form a complete totally ordered field, which identifies with the real numbers). This is done with some care in Spivak's book for example. This is not a matter of style or taste, it is a matter of mathematical correctness and accuracy. What is in the reverted article is faulty. Messagetolove 16:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Messagetolove 19:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Messagetolove 19:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
See User talk:CBM#Importance vs priority. Any comments? (I guess this is not an issue for the WP 1.0 bot, but it doesn't do any harm to make sure ;) Geometry guy 17:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Carl and I have now implemented the changeover from importance to priority. I noticed a possible effect on WP 1.0 bot: will it automatically fix the links at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Mathematics articles by quality statistics? It isn't very important because I've turned the old pages into redirects, but it's nice to tidy up sometimes... Geometry guy 20:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Mathbot is insisting that this AfD discussion is still open when it's been closed. You may want to review and see what assumption is tripping it up; at a guess, it may be because <!--Template:Afd top is lacking the closing -->, but naturally I have no idea how it determines that a discussion has been closed.
Cheers, and thanks for the good work on the bot! It's invaluable. — Madman bum and angel ( talk – desk) 22:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for supporting my request for adminship and for your expression of confidence in me. The RfA was successful and I am now an admin. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon ( Talk) 05:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, I must admit that you have surprised me by removing 'merge' tag in Dual cone, while stating your point of view in the summary of the edit. I think it was rather dismissive on your part, quite contrary to my impression of you as a Wikipedian with fine understanding of Wikiquette. I've looked at talk pages for both articles, and this issue has not been discussed, but perhaps, it should be. This is what tags are used for, or at least so I thought. Arcfrk 01:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem! I guessed it was a misunderstanding, and I didn't realize that the 'merge' tag must be accompanied by an explanation (I see a lot of tags without explanations). But first a procedural issue, let us restore the tag and carry out the discussion at the talk page of the article, so that it may be viewed by other interested parties, OK? Arcfrk 02:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your message on my talk page. I agree with your suggestion, and have just moved the page to One-to-one (disambiguation). -- Edcolins 15:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Oleg.
I was roaming Wikipedia when I stumbled across the article for Stephen Hawking (the cosmologist). Someone had edited it and wrote (and I quote): "Stephen Cripple legs Hawking... is a British top class athlete and winner of the 2004 Olympics."
I was utterly disgusted to see something so offensive especially on Wikipedia. I have full conviction that this is not representative of the organisation at all, and I think it is very likely that there are some rogues roaming.
I would like to make a request to the relevant authorities that whoever made this change should be banned. (1. I am surprised it was not altered until I saw it; and 2. I have consequently changed the article to how it was before using a cached link from Google.)
How do I go about this?
Thanks in advance.
PS I have a print-screen image of the page with the rude comments on, as proof of my claims. If you want, I can post it up, but I'm unsure how to attach (I'm a newbie user).
Natural Philosopher 14:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
_____________________
Thanks for your comments.
I have checked that the article has been restored to the latest correct edit using the History tab (I didn't know about that before).
I also now know the username of the member who did this. However, he does not have a user page. Is there any way that I put his name on a warning list or something like that?
Thank you.
Natural Philosopher 15:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
___________________
Many thanks for your advice and assistance in this matter, Oleg.
Natural Philosopher 21:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "merge", "fact", "cleanup" etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 17:10 9 June 2007 (GMT).
Hi... I wasn't sure if you already knew it or not, but WP 1.0 bot hasn't touched the assessments for WikiProject Louisville or WikiProject Kentucky (and possibly other projects) for six days. I hope the bot is doing ok. Thanks! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that, Oleg. I didn't realize my console setup would screw around with unicode when I edited something else on Wikipedia. I'll have to be more circumspect from now on. Thanx for the heads-up.
Pazouzou 19:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Oleg
Thanks muchly for your help with "Product Integral" plus your suggestions. There is so much in Wikipedia that I was feeling a bit lost.
I was hoping to contribute something on "dx-less integrals" (you'll have to look then up at www.geocities.com/multigrals2000 and download the appropriate word doc) and the "fair bet paradox" but I'm wondering if it might "be sailing too close to the breeze". Will concentrate on adding to Product Integral for now.
Again, thanks for your help
Daryl Williams 04:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
P.S: Liked your webpage as well.
P.P.S: Could wiki-mathematicians possibly help with dx-less integrals? Everyone I've shown them to can't figure them out. Daryl Williams 04:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Will do. Daryl Williams 23:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg,
you added a picture of a normal vector field to vector field. Since the vectors are normal to the surface everywhere, the vector field is effectively a scalar field. It's a section of the trivial real line bundle. Since vector bundles have their own article, I don't think this picture is appropriate (or at least problematic) for the vector field article. Let's stick to tangent vector fields. What do you think? -- MarSch 09:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
There are two problems with my pictures:
if I find anything I'll tell you
-- Toobaz 14:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you modify the bot from using page names such as Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chess articles by quality statistics to using Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chess articles by quality/statistics? That would create handy back links to the statistics and log pages too. Currently the those pages do not link to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chess articles by quality which is, in my opinion, more essential than linking to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team which is what they do. -- ZeroOne ( talk | @) 15:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I corrected this section but you incorrectly labelled those corrections as wrong. Again: if v is less than escape velocity the object WILL BE IN AN ELIPTICAL ORBIT. You write "falls back to earth in a parabola" but miss the entire point. The only reason any object falls back to the earth is because it is not a point mass, otherwise any object would orbit. Satellites, for example, ARE IN ORBIT. Right? Can we agree? Guess what: their velocity is less than escape velocity, otherwise, by definition, they would not be in orbit. You think a satellite in orbit has a velocity equal to escape velocity. THEN HOW DO SATELLITES ORBIT AT DIFFERENT ALTITUDES? Answer: any velocity less than escape velocity is an elliptical orbit. Orbit is, by definition, a bounded energy system. If an object has a v equal to escape speed then it is no longer a bounded system and cannot be in orbit. If v is equal to escape speed then the object obeys a parabolic trajectory and escapes (duh) an infinite distance from the system. If v is greater than the escape speed than the object obeys a hyperbolic orbit.
Again:
I try to contribute to this site and a moron who doesn't understand basic physics (and yet is supposedly a grad student) over-writes it. That is frustrating. Please stick to editing things you have some basic knowledge of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.95.124 ( talk • contribs)
This is correct. The point mass I was referring to is the earth itself. Again, if the earth were a point mass, any object with any velocity less than escape speed would be in an elliptical orbit. Because the earth is not a point mass, but has finite dimensions, paths that would otherwise be elliptical orbits collide with the body of the earth. This is irrelevant, however, because "conic sections and gravity" has to do with orbital dynamics, in which all these masses are defined to be point masses, not the kinematics of a person standing on the earth's surface. So, one more time: 1. if v < escape speed, the object will be in an elliptical orbit. 2. if v = escape speed, the object will have a parabolic trajectory and not return to the planet (i.e. IT IS NOT IN AN ORBIT). 3. if v > escape speed, the object will have a hyperbolic trajectory and not return, obviously. I have no problem with the fact that wikipedia is often wrong. The problem I have is when a physicist makes a correction to a section about physics and someone who obviously has never taken a basic introductory freshman physics course overwrites those corrections because of his own gross incompetence. In order for an object to be in an orbit it must have a negative energy--i.e., it must be a bound system. When v = escape speed the object is not bound and it CANNOT BE IN ORBIT. I can't believe these basic misunderstandings of such simple physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.55.200.20 ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 2007 June 15
Oleg, that is only true under a constant field, i.e., one that does not change in strength with altitude. The gravitational field, however, does change with distance, giving a potential energy that changes with 1/r. Thus, a man who throws a ball in the air only perceives a parabola because for this very small altitude change the field is roughly constant. It would, in fact, be an elliptical orbit if you took the earth to be a point mass, as you should, and accounted for the fact that the gravitational field is changing with altitude. This section is not about kinematics under fixed gravitational fields. It is about gravitational fields over very large distances (i.e., significantly greater than the size of a planet). This seems to be the source of confusion. You are looking at this in the wrong domain (a person on a planet rather than orbiting bodies). As I mentioned before, in order for a body to orbit it must have a bound energy--i.e., taking potential energy to be defined as 0 at infinite distance, and negative for anything less than infinite distance, the "negative energy" contributed by this potential energy must be greater in magnitude than the positive kinetic energy (1/2 m v^2). If they are equal in magnitude, thus giving a total energy of 0, then the system is no longer "bound" and the object proceeds in a parabolic trajectory. This occurs when v = v_escape. When total energy is actually positive (v > v_escape) the trajectory is hyperbolic. Only when total energy is negative (v < v_escape) is the system bound, and the shape is always elliptical in this condition. Again, in all of these cases, it is assumed that the distances are large enough for the gravitational field to be varying--i.e., the scale is large enough to allow 1/r to make a difference. For this purpose, planets are taken as point masses. --unsigned
JRSpriggs, awesome job at Euclidean geometry. Also, the way you wrote things the article no longer contradicts itself; a while ago at one place in the article it was claimed that the trajectory was an ellipse, and somewhere below that was a parabola. I agree that talking about comets orbiting the sun would be a good idea as the whole thing with the Earth could still be confusing. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 15:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_14#Category:Good_articles_by_quality. Geometry guy 10:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I was told that you are in charge of this particular bot, so hopefully you can help me with a problem. I was assessing articles for the SFBA Project when I noticed that the statistics table wasn't updating. I found the log and saw that for some reason, the bot had stopped checking on June 4th. I'm quite new to the project and I'm not sure what could have caused it to stop. Any help would be appreciated. =] MissMJ 20:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I created a page with the above title and I think I chose the article title poorly and I would like to change it to say Military Operations of Iraq 2003 to current-Alphabetical - Kumioko
Hi Oleg, Do I need to do anything specific to clean up the article? Thanks/Brian Bwestwoo 14:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
In the Biography log, the page Lynne Arriale is listed as removed from the Biography project. But it still has the Bio banner on the talk page, and the only thing that happened to it was that someone added the listas clause to the WPBiography banner. The links to the talk page also indicate the page has been removed from the Bioproject, where that clearly is not the case. Something strange is going on here. Er rab ee 23:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your help with the ampersand. The bot did what it was supposed to once, but i think it is having problems with "&" again. it still only updates texas a/ Thanks again for your help Oldag07 01:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey Oleg, do you know what math articles would benefit most from illustration? I am on a drawing kick (along with about ten other things) and I would like to knock the most important/needed images out first. -- Cronholm 144 15:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... I might do the same with mathbot's list. Although I have made a habit of remaking bad png pictures as svgs, and it seems that there is no end to the work in that arena (just type svg into commons and look at the articles needing replacement). I think I might also go through my books and see if they have any particularly good images that I can reproduce as svgs. That is, of course, if I have time. I need to finish grading E and I want to work on integral and I want to write articles on Hodge manifolds and the Poincaré-Birkhoff theorem... I think I might be spreading myself too thin. Anyway, let me know if you want me to doodle anything(assuming that you don't want to do it yourself) I find it a welcome distraction :) Cheers -- Cronholm 144 15:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a gallery Oleg? A gallery would give me something to compete against :) and give you a place to show off some of your work. -- Cronholm 144 15:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I should have seen it earlier, but I was too distracted by the article about intelligent falling. :)-- Cronholm 144 15:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
62 in you gallery(only some!?), 30 in mine (admittedly over half were crafted as png replacements, but never-mind that), (Ignoring the facts) I am halfway there! ;)-- Cronholm 144 19:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Darn, I read that quasi-crystalline article about half a year ago and thought I didn't need to look... I will leave the old pic up for now while I make the new one.-- Cronholm 144 13:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I know about this feature, but I copied the style used in the published work. It works out once you start putting them together. BTW I don't know what happened with my grammar in that caption. I must have been staring at the screen too long. I am almost done with the final illustration and I think it looks pretty good. I think I am going to make three versions frame only, tiles only, and both to illustrate the structure. Cheers-- Cronholm 144 15:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
...by the Wikipedian Knightly Order.
Wise sage Alexandrov the Great, you have long been a source of inspiration and good council to the members of the Wikipedian Knightly Order. Recognition of your contributions and status is long overdue. Your all-seeing, all-knowing eyes equip you with a great wisdom, and the Knightly Order welcomes you warmly into its ranks for your support of our mission. Geometry guy 20:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The least I could do. Long may you continue to reign over your kingdom so wisely :) Geometry guy 21:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Oleg, I received your request and, as requested, in the future I will write an edit summary. Thanks for explaining. I didn't do it before because I did not happen to notice the importance of edit summaries (I always prefer to see the "diff"). Paolo.dL 08:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems I always turn to you for page moves! Symplectic topology clearly should be moved to Symplectic geometry, but the latter has a history of two or three changes of redirects, so I can't do it. Category:Symplectic topology should likewise be renamed to Category:Symplectic geometry, although here I don't know the procedures: I doubt further comment at WT:WPM will contradict this obvious rename, but I understand if you want to wait a bit. Geometry guy 22:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be no appetite at the round table for a CFD, so I have replaced most symplectic topology cats by symplectic geometry. I still think a cat move is slightly preferable to creating a new cat, but if you don't, then I will just do the latter. Geometry guy 20:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg. While doing some daily prep for my "math for poets" course at Ohio State, I just looked up Wikipedia's claim for the length of the Japanese coastline, at the " Geography of Japan" page. It reports a very precise figure: 29,751 kilometers. Of course you and I know this is totally bogus: the coastline of Japan isn't a curve, it doesn't have a length, and any reported figure implicitly depends on a choice of ruler length, i.e., on the scale below which you ignore any irregularities of the fractal. Just to further illustrate this point, Wikipedia and Brittanica (last time I checked) report that the coastline of Honshu is 5450 km and 10,084 km respectively. (On the other hand, there is a Wikipedia page " Coastline paradox.")
Obviously this sort of bogus statistic occurs repeatedly throughout the encyclopedia, without any understanding that it's meaningless. It seems hopeless for the mathematically inclined to root out this misunderstanding, and yet isn't it unsettling that an encyclopedia would contain this sort of thing? Ishboyfay 19:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Oleg -- sure thing. I'll try to add to the article when I get a chance -- I didn't know about the monastery before, but I was struck by its beauty when I stumbled upon the stub you created. Better do some math first -- I've been spending too much time at WP lately! :) Turgidson 11:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
Such a great backlog work your bot does, very helpful tool for projects I'm working on Andersmusician $ 23:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
I noticed that Project stats chart at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Yu-Gi-Oh! articles by quality statistics show on the importance row "None" instead "Low", hope you fix this -- Andersmusician $ 00:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I wonder what would you think about making your bot to create an Project's article stats table but for non-article pages (example at category:Non-article Peru pages, discussion at Template_talk:Image-Class), thanks -- Andersmusician VOTE 00:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.
I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you please make WP 1.0 bot not to link the dates and year as section headers? Linking them makes all date/year article changes to show up in Special:Recentchangeslinked, cluttering the change list to the point where it is hard to see relevant changes. I've unlinked those manually, but I don't think that is a good idea in the long run. DLX 04:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg! I'm writing you about a bot you operate, WP 1.0 bot ( talk · contribs). It keeps adding the following pages to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index:
These have all been moved or are in the process of being moved, to replace Holland with the Netherlands. The pages containing "the Netherlands" are right below Holland in the Index. I've tried to remove the pages containing the word "Holland" in the title from the Index, but the bot keeps putting them back in. I don't know how the bot has been programmed, or whether this is temporary, but I just wanted to let you know about this. A ecis Brievenbus 21:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that is happening because the bot takes two days to run, so it takes a while to react to changes. I don't think the bot will update those pages again. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Curious about my edit summary usage, I tried to check and got a 403 Forbidden error. Ral315 » 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help in correcting my formatting. I'm learning. I have preposed a project to expand the logical connectives ( proposal). Any input would be appreciated.
Be well, Gregbard 22:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey! It seems that your bot made some edits on the previous version of the
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/R&B and Soul Music articles by quality statistics, can you fix it right now??
Regards
Eduemoni
↑talk↓
01:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey there. First excellent thing you created. Second I have absolutely no idea how to make it up myself even though you gave instructions on one of the pages relating to wikipedia assessment. I was wondering if it was possible to give me some sort of instructions or maybe you can perhaps create it for me (as in get the bot to start making it and then it begins to do regular updates)? Sorry maybe the page I am looking at isn't the right one to look at to create a statistics table. It is for the anatomy wikiproject and only recently have I created a article by quality and article by importance category for the anatomy wikiproject so any help for Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Anatomy articles by quality statistics would be greatly appreciated :). Thanks heaps. petze 06:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey. Since you seem to be the last logged user to write in Wave Equation, and you're an admin, I was curious if you could tell me if my proposal to add a video of a solution of a couple of wave equations is worthwhile for the article. Swap 08:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I am glad you like it :-) Zureks 10:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, I sincerely wish to be proved wrong, but given the recent events at Integral, we may have to brace for a nasty revert war involving a keen editor with misplaced enthusiasm. I cannot spare much time these days, not on item-by-item rebuttals anyway, but I do not like his groping-in-the-dark editing of the lead. I know, the article isn't finished yet … however, the lead is the first thing someone sees after googling integral and following the top link. Arcfrk 19:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
At Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team#Update_did_not_occur you mentioned investigating the problem. Do you know how to conduct such an investigation.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The xyzzy mnemonic is useful but the M2L2FM process simplifies the process even further.
M2L2FM becomes ML LF FM
ML = Middle coordinate (y) of first vector multiplied by the Last coordinate of the second vector(z).
LF = Last coordinate (z) of the first vector multiplied by the First coordinate of the second vector (x)
FM = First coordinate (x) of the first vector multiplied by the Middle coordinate of the second vector (y)
By simply mirroring all three sets of letters;
ML mirrored = LM
LF mirrored = FL
FM mirrored = MF
and placing them on the right hand side of the original sets;
ML LM LF FL FM MF
then placing minus signs between them creates all 3 cross product equations simultaneously;
(ML - LM) (LF - FL) (FM - MF)
which is the equivalent of
(a2b3 - a3b2) (a3b1 - a1b3) (a1b2 - a2b1)
in matrix notation or
(ByCz - BzCy) (BzCx - BxCz) (BxCy - ByCx)
in the xyzzy notation.
Perhaps the M2L2FM method is confusing to some people because it simultaneously generates all three cross product equations.
Most people, i.e. right handers, think in a linear/sequential fashion and can only extrapolate one equation at a time from the cross product using the xyzzy method while left handers like myself think in a parallel/lateral fashion and can visualize all three cross product equations simultaneously using the M2L2FM method.
Greetings! I found a curious incident of the bot not adding all newly tagged articles to the log while adding it to the articles by quality list. I was wondering if it was a common problem or if it's localized to a certain WikiProject. Specifically, I'm talking about WP:CPS and the following pages:
Some of the new Stylidium pages I've created haven't been showing up in the log, but are in the list of articles by quality (specifically Stylidium sect. Biloba and others like that).
My concern is that if this is more widespread, then WikiProjects that have more activity might miss crucial article additions/moves/etc. I also watch the WP:PLANTS assessment log, and now I wonder how many articles the log has missed. Any ideas on this problem? Cheers, -- Rkitko ( talk) 18:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey Oleg, would you mind taking a look here and giving an opinion. I really screwed up.-- Cronholm 144 05:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Gregbard 06:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey Oleg, I give up, this needs an admin's touch. See my post here also. Cheers-- Cronholm 144 12:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, Mathbot has Samuel Bruce McClaren as a redlink. I have created a redirect and article for the correct spelling: Samuel Bruce McLaren, — regards Diverman 12:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Any chance of an update to User:Mathbot/Most wanted redlinks? — David Eppstein 16:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this! I can already see some obvious stuff to fix (e.g. the first thing I'll look at: the "Paul Erd&" links) or would have been if someone else hadn't been faster (or less distracted by Harry Potter reading). —
David Eppstein
01:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Your new images look nice, but I worry leaving out the axes neglects an important point about the spatial dependence.-- Loodog 16:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I can give you my code and you can decide for yourself if you want to proceed with this (warning: it will be a few hours of work, but at the end of the day you may have learned how to write your own bot). The code is here. If you decide to work on it, you need to do the following:
It goes without saying that all those codes need to be tweaked to work for chess rather than for math. So you need to read and modify each code to do what you want. Also, you need to specify the correct path to the "modules" directories you downloaded above in the "use lib" line of each script you run.
As I told you above, it could be some work to adapt the scripts to the chess, but if you wish it done, now you can. If you have questions, let me know. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 05:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Oleg!
This is no big deal, but I noticed this edit summary. Sorry, but "The integral" is idiomatic in this context.
There's no easy way to explain when "the" is necessary, and when it can (or should) be omitted. Silly Rabbit's comment (next edit) about grammar is inaccurate – this is really a matter of English idiom, and not a matter of grammar, strictly speaking.
Just thought you might want to know ... ;^> DavidCBryant 17:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi I am trying to get the Serial Killer Task Force (a task force of the Criminal Biography WikiProject ) assessment table to automatically update. I think it is set up right, I just used the Criminal Biography WikiProject as a guide. Could you please just take a look at everything and make sure it is set up to perform properly. Thank you so much, Jmm6f488 21:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so very much!!! Jmm6f488 03:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again for all the help! I just have one final question. Is there any thing else I need to do or does the bot automatically update the assessment table every couple of days? Jmm6f488 17:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'll try and follow them in future. Eraserhead1 10:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not conspicuously using the edit summary box. I didn't exactly pay you message much heed when I got it, but the idea stuck in my brain and now I realize it's probably a good idea to write a quick message, whether I think it's important at the time or not. Just wanted to let you know I'm a convert. Rhetth 02:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi... and thanks for making the modifications. Yesterday I was in a hurry, but while explaining topological space to a friend I thought some simple examples would help so I put one in the Wikipedia. I generally am very particular about styles myself... but I figured I will just put the gist of one example and run... so that other volunteers may modify it, and also put more examples.
Thanks again, Arnab
The benefit to Wikipedia of discussing this weighed against the downside of causing distress to a fellow editor is very questionable. Please stop. It's also against policy to participate in harassment and outing attempts. ElinorD (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
It cetainly does bear on her work here in regards to WP:COI, a hammer she herself has taken to wielding against those she has editing disputes (see User:Sparkzilla) among other things. Piperdown 00:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Trying to censor all discussion about this simply makes a bad situation worse and is precisely what the attackers of Wikipedia want us to do. Paul August ☎ 18:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a note to say that I saw what happened to your attempt to have a discussion about Wikipedia's self-censorship on AN/I and I think it was a shame that your post was dismissed so readily. Catchpole 16:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Oleg, just days ago, SlimVirgin permabanned an "outed" editor, Mark Devlin aka sparkzilla, for conflict of interest. Devlin is the publisher of Metropolis, a significant English language magazine in Japan (according to wikipedia). Once he was outed (which no one was banned for, by the way), he acknowledged his own COI and agreed to only post on talk pages of the articles he had edited before. That wasn't enough for SlimVirgin, who had previously been in an editing dispute with Mark, and took full advantage of a COI gray area to banish an opponent. Today's revelations are not revelations to many of us who have witnesses such hyprocrisy and more from Ms. Virgin. And now you all know why Ms. Virgin so ferociously protects abusive editors who have made taking pot shots at Patrick M. Byrne across several wikipedia articles a 9-5 workday job on-wiki, a result of an off-wiki Journalists vs CEO skirmish. And all over a french fry. There are several more COI's in that slim closet if you look harder, and they were fully hammered against many wikipedians with the full support of a admin's on-wiki social network. That's all I have to say on this matter, but those who consider themselves "powerful" at wikipedia need to take a hard look at the wagon-circling, COI's, and the effect of what appears to be sometimes more a social networking site than a serious encyclopedia. Piperdown 23:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg - another note of support, and to let you know that I've raised similar issues again at the noticeboard - cheers, Purples 03:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, I reviewed what I could find of the removed material (for example, your notices at ANI), and I completely agree with you: this doesn't look good for wikipedia. I've also noted that the violent (over)reaction came entirely from two editors/admins. I am especially appalled by the alleged purging of the edit history. There is a good reason why we should be able to trust the edit histories, and it's distressing to learn that a determined administrator can unilaterally tamper with them! This is definitely a policy level issue worth discussing. Cheers, Arcfrk 03:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Grateful for your views on this. PrimeHunter wants to delete it as trivial. He put on a prod notice that I removed. He's a specialist on prime numbers and what is trivial to him is surely not trivial to most people; anyway, if it's so obvious, how come he didn't know it already? I concede that it may not really be by Bell, but surely that's grounds for a rename, not deletion? How do I contest a deletion vote if he moves one?-- Bedivere 21:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I had a pretty valid reason for removing "top" importance for snu but your bot retagged it. it's not neutral to tag a single university as top importance and ignore all the others. I'll be re-removing the importance unless you can give me a good reason. Thanks! Aepoutre 23:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
You are correct. I have some lax habits as far as the edit summaries. I will try to be more mindful of it. Gregbard 01:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Apollo is but one example as there are many. For example, I also said firefly but Paraffin follows suit, and there are many more. Curves International is only the largest fitness franchise in the world, larger than Bally's and Gold's gyms combined. You can read a discussion on the Curves talk page to see why I'm doing this compromise, if you will, rather than seeking another rfc. Most people when they search for Curves, are not looking for the math concept, but in fact are looking for the women's fitness center. Again, this is in keeping with Wikipedia and the many articles that do the same. There is no defacing, no edit wars (hopefully), and I think is a good compromise. I originally created Curves and pointed it to Curves International, however, when the math guru's decided they wanted it to go to Curve, the math concept, that's where the issues arose. I went along with the community in the redirect, but I am doing so here with the perfectly accepted format of otheruses4 as a good compromise as well. Hope that answers your questions, if not, just let me know and I'll be able to answer whatever I missed. Cheers! -- Maniwar ( talk) 16:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, you are right. Quasi-newton methods however are a generalization of the secant method to multidimensional problems. They are normally used to find the root of the gradient, rather than a function because that is what is useful in optimization. I corrected the text. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smarchesini ( talk • contribs).
I've undid your revert, because for such a long article, it really does not have much citations (only 3). The article really needs more inline citations (as well as reliable references). The template clearly states: Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. In good faith. Ǣ0 ƞS 18:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I added the description of the Broyden's method. Broyden's method becomes the secant method in 1D, so I think it is worth mentioning it in the secant method, but feel free to modify my entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smarchesini ( talk • contribs).
Regarding the category change you made to article The three Rs I do follow your gerneral thinking about placing it in the master category Category:Education but we are working hard to remove all but the most basic of education articles from the master category and moving them into the appropate sub-category. Do you feel that this article truely belongs in the master category? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject. Dbiel ( Talk) 19:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
As a separate issue (after reading your user page) would you be willing to look at the following discussion regarding the deletion of Image:Deewar - A Wall.jpg Specificly the rouge admin's refusal to address the issue of un-deleting the image. User talk:^demon#Image:Deewar - A Wall.jpg Thank you in advance Dbiel ( Talk) 19:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Is there an intermittent problem with the bot picking up Comments pages? Initially I thought that there may be a time lag between the comment page creation and it appearing in the log but that does not seem to be the problem as it has picked up some later comment pages.
For example the article Holderness in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Yorkshire articles by quality/1 there is no comment appended yet the comment page was created on 5 July 2007.
Keith D 09:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
hello, first sorry i didnt see your complaint until i added the external link again. but can you explain why progrms to calculate determinants are not relevant to the determinant page --unsigned anon
ok sorry, the reason i kept adding was because i didnt realise that it was you that deleted it and just thought my updates were not working. I will not try to upload the link again --unsigned anon
I'm collecting an amount of lists for isolated articles (e.g. Wikipedia:Orphan) and managing some categories in ruwiki. Articles are put to appropriate categories by a AWB bot, which (un)marks them with some templates. Now it is much uncomfortable for me to use AWB because of some reasons, like:
After all of this, I am now looking at WikiBots, and taking into account the level of my Python, I've drawn my attention to perlwikipedia.
What I just want is to get some recommendations regarding to a stub to start with. Are there any perlwikipedia bots working on the toolserver and, let say, (un)tagging articles with templates? This kind of example, I hope, can give me a pretty nice time save. Mashiah 15:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
It would be wise to move make the 'Complexity Zoo' link stand out. Should I put a link in the main article? I'm also not quite sure how to make the article easier for someone unfamiliar with computer science. It seems that a description of what AWPP implies would be more useful to those needing more than just a technical reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JWhiteheadcc ( talk • contribs).
Hi Oleg,
I assume you are the author of the proof of the " Hahn decomposition theorem" on Wikipedia. Could you please explain the step: "ε1 is finite since 0 > μ(A) > -∞". Thanks.
Ban me! Math Maniac 11:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Could you please use the edit summary more often? Thanks. :) Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 17:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
You beat me to removing the information in the recent version you reverted to, and it's good to see some people are able to spot glaring factual errors. Thank you. Uxorion 16:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you please tell me how I might add myself to the British documentary filmmakers section?
I am an award winning documentary producer/director, with credits including:
Millennium: A thousand years of history (BBC/CNN) Commanding Heights: the Battle for the World Economy (PBS/BBC). Britain’s Finest Castles (Channel Five) Britain’s Finest Ancient Monuments (Channel Five) Weapons that Made Britain (Channel 4) Tales from the Green Valley (BBC)
I looked at the British and English documentary filmmaker categories, but I could not figure out how to add someone.
I realise you might not be quite the right person to ask, but if you can point me in the right direction, I will be most grateful.
Kindest regards,
Peter Sommer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.148.158.190 ( talk) 13:56, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
selfworm
Talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
selfworm Talk) 03:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I have two requests that I was hoping could get a few moments of your time. The first is about a move I proposed. See Talk:Popcorn_function. The move seems to be totally uncontested (no one seems to be paying any attention to the article), but I can't move it on my own because the target article does not have an empty or trivial history (having a few minor edits). I'm not sure if I could technically do it, but the page-moving rules seem to say that I can't (or shouldn't) and I don't want to mess something up.
My second request is for comment, relating to small set and large set. Another editor determined that "large set" and "small set" cannot share a disambiguation, and split them up into two articles. I thought this was terribly redundant (just look at the two pages) and completely unnecessary. Maybe I'm wrong, but I want to merge them back together, so that people looking for large/small sets will find what they're looking for regardless. Could you give any input on this? Thanks for your help. -- Cheeser1 12:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey Oleg, just thought I'd let you know that I've fixed up the remaining bugs in Perlwikipedia and released version 1.0 on Google Code. Although, with my luck, some gaping hole will pop up 30 seconds after I write this. Anyway, thanks for all your help! Shadow1 (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The bot used to link to open discussions on /old like : 1 2 3 4 5 and so forth. This feature was great, can you bing it back? Navou banter 17:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg,
I would like to invite you and other Wikipedians to check out Zercle.com, which is a search engine for nonfiction books that I've just launched.
Zercle is designed to solve a problem that often plagues us on book sites such as Amazon.com: We spend a huge amount of time trying (and usually failing) to get an idea of what books are available in our particular categories of interest. For example, if you enter "Group Theory" in the search box at Amazon you'll get a hodgepodge of 1431 results, the first page of which is mostly psychology books! It's ridiculous.
What if you want a list of all undergraduate-level books in "Group Theory" that are currently in-print? Good luck. There's no way to get that information, unless you want to spend a few days going through 1431 results. In effect, we're still very much in the Stone Age when it comes to answering such questions.
With Zercle, however, volunteer editors will create, edit and maintain book groups which contain all of the books that are currently in-print in a given category. Zercle has developed a special method for analyzing the core subject of a book to determine which group or groups are appropriate for the book. This is all detailed in the "Instructions for book group editors" page.
Zercle is like Wikipedia in that it is edited by volunteers and thus starts off with very little content being there for users. Unlike Wikipedia, however, Zercle requires editors to register and that they be "knowledgeable enough" in the subject areas that they edit.
I've already started building a few groups on Zercle myself, in the "quantum mechanics" area, since I'm knowledgeable enough there (BS Physics). If you enter "quantum mechanics" into the Title box on the Zercle front page you'll see those groups. If you also enter, say, "Griffiths" into the Author box, you'll see the specific group which contains the QM book written by that author. I've only just started these groups, so none of them are yet complete. But, as I've already alluded, the idea is to eventually have groups that are complete, so that users can easily discover what books are available in their categories of interest, and authors can pretty much be guaranteed that users have an easy way of discovering their book.
Once Zercle gets going we will no longer have to waste countless hours on Amazon only to get a tiny glimpse of what books are available in our particular categories of interest. We'll simply enter the title (or title words and maybe an author's last name) from any book in the category into the Zercle query box, and instantly have at our fingertips a *complete* list of the other books in that category, with links to their corresponding Amazon pages.
So please check out http://www.zercle.com/. Editors are needed in all non-fiction subjects (Zercle does not support *fiction* books). For questions/comments: paul at zercle dot com.
Thanks very much for reading this.
Paul White (developer of Zercle)
Emwave 20:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
hi i am Ramesh from India. Your pictures & diagrams are so nice & very helpful to me. i serched for your mail id. but i couldn't get it. At present i am studying Mtech. my mail id is (snipped) I will feel happy if I get reply Thanking you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.246.230 ( talk) 09:58, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I have been setting up over the last couple of months a WikiProject Zimbabwe. We have recently started assessing our articles and like other WikiProjects have a articles by quality statistics. However, we do not have the table filled in sufficiently and the few cells that are filled in I have done manually but this is a slow, painstaking process. I see however on the England page WP 1.0 bot has scanned the articles and filled in the data automatically. Could you, as and when you have the time, please run the bot on our page to try and save us time as I'm not all too sure how to do it. Many thanks in advance, Mangwanani 12:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, for some reason WP 1.0 bot hasn't updated Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Puerto Rico articles by quality statistics in almost a week, I took care of the entire 900 page backlog and we need to know the current status because we are planing a project, when do you think will be possible for WP 1.0 bot to do the new assessment? - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Any idea why Coherence (philosophical gambling strategy) is listed among "new articles"? I know that happens when a page gets moved, but this page has sat there at that same title for several years. Michael Hardy 17:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg,
I recently started a new article about the mathematician John Hilton Grace (it's a skeleton right now, but it might become more informative later on) and noticed that Mathbot noticed and automatically added his name to List of mathematicians (G) - very cool by the way.
The question now is how to clue Mathbot to his nationality and birth/death years. Currently the line looks like:
even though I added this information in a semi-standard way to the article.
I am considering starting articles for a few other mathematicians, so this information would be helpful. « D Trebbien ( talk) 19:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Fortunate number has me wondering: when do you capitalize name adjectives? CompositeFan 20:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Greetings Oleg, Thanks for your work. I have placed "Fuzzy logic" under philosophy and not in mathematics at the WikiProject Logic. I think this is consistent with the wishes expressed at WP:MATH. Please look over the category division under scope at WP:Logic.
I have recently proposed that the project serve as an intersection of otherwise separate departments philosophy and math. My idea is that the Math project would designate WP:Logic as the task force responsible for the "foundations" field including set theory. WP:PHILO would designate it as the logic task force under its project. There will be two worklists derived from two banners: the math banner under foundations field, and philosophy under the logic field. I think this is best for everyone. I have used transculsions in several areas so as to make separate, and common areas for the math and philosophy aspects of it.
I guess all I can do is ask that the WP:Math group consider taking responsibility for certain categories, and coordinating with the philosophy poeple so as to keep the overlap small. I had been proposing for User:SatyrBot to do automatic tagging of categories for the logic banner. Now I am proposing that the philosophy department use fields with its banner including a logic field. The philosophy project appears ready to move forward on bot tagging. We are starting with metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, and aesthetics fields to see how it goes.
You run the bot activities at WP:Math, so I wanted to kind of give you an update on activities in that area. The discussion about covering topics under WP:PHILO has left out the math categories. So if they are to be acceptable as a part of a joint logic project, I think many would be acceptable under the separated proposal under math. I invite your corespondence. Be well,
Be well, Gregbard 03:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
If you don't agree with something, please discuss, rather than keeping reverting. Doing more of reverting will just get you blocked again. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 05:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about wrong tag. I thought that part of the point of the tags was to help users recognize the level of authority, objectivty, and care in the article. High placement, to give fair warning, supports that. Otherwise its a bait-and-switch: Start reading, thinking it's authoritative, only to be disappointed at the bottom. DCDuring 03:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Our feed at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ships articles by quality statistics hasn't been updating lately. I've run it manually at the web form a couple times recently; when I went to manually run it today, it failed out repeatedly, with errors like this on each query:
Warning: Could not fetch http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php?what=category&cptitle=Wikipedia+1.0+assessments&format=txt&cplimit=500 properly in attempt 1 !!!
Hope you can help straighten this out. Thanks very much! Maralia 02:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, how can I link to your mathbot tool without getting the results for the corresponding user on en.wikipedia? My username is Adriaan_1 on af.wikipedia, and when I manually enter it into your website, it displays my edit count just fine. But when I link to it through a template, it displays the edit count of Adriaan_1 at en.wikipedia: mhttp://www.math.ucla.edu/~aoleg/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?user=Adriaan_1. What should I do to make it display the edit count for accounts at af.wikipedia? — Adriaan ( T★ C) 16:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I don't know how drunk you get mi amigo, but if you are stumbling in multiple dimensions, [9] I'll have what you are having.
But seriously, back in the day, this was a standard beginners program in LOGO, and it's remarkable, and very counter-intuitive, that you end up at the same point via a simulated drunkard's walk.
I generally throw a {{fact}} tag on anything I write that I don't have a source handy for, and I understand you might want to clarify the point, but the article as it stood completely neglected to explain the basic relevance mathematically/computationally behind the whole idea. So I've restored the edit. You yourself, frankly, with your knowledge of higher dimensions, might be better able than I to find a good source to support this, I strongly suspect. -- 146.115.58.152 05:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
hi oleg- thank you for your helpful suggestions. can you tell us how long to wait to post an edit to an article after posting to discussion? do we wait for your approval (as watch) or how does it work? kind regards, Kvihill 21:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I reverted your to formal power series because that section in the article does not assume that X is a complex variable or that the series is even convergent. Rather, X is a formal variable, and the series can have its coefficient in any ring, and complex analysis is not applicable except in a very special case of holomorphic functions.
I wonder what you think. You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC) (originally on User:Ivanip's talk page.
Just thought I'd drop you a note to say thank you for your ISBN converting tool. I use it every day and find it quick and useful. Much appreciated. qp10qp 17:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Oleg! It would be a nice thing to try to set some rules concerning notation for the probabilty and expectation symbols. In the various probability/statistics articles I've seen at least three notations: , and finally . Personally, I prefer the latter, as it's the accepted notation of the scientific community (sometimes the letters are bold, i.e. P and E but always straight). I have not seen nevertheless any guide that woud explain such a thing. Is there any way we could make a public discussion about this resulting in some agreement and guide for wikipedia community? Thanks in advance Amir Aliev 21:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Oleg!
Say, I was poking around another 'bot's pages when I ran across this automated message. When I looked at the table I saw that Jitse has updated his 'bot's status, but the entry for Mathbot still says "Discontinued". I know you're busy, so I figure you may not have seen the automated message on Mathbot's talk page. So I'm just giving you a quick heads up.
Thanks for all the great things you do around here! DavidCBryant 02:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed you run a bot in which updates the information and statistics for tables informing users of the number of good articles/featured articles/class A and class B etc articles. I did this once and find it extremely boring and difficult to do and I noticed that your bot updates daily on Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland. Well i would just like to know how I could sign to get this Bot to help, I am the creator of WikiProject Tyne and Wear and I would really like to sign up for this bots help as the job is extremely boring to do manually. Could you please tell me if and how I can sign up for this bots help as soon as possible. Thanks and could you please reply on my talk page. Telly addict Editor review! 12:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg! I was not aware of this guidelines here. Thanks for the tip! I'll be more cautioned in further edits. Bye! Cyb3r 21:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Oleg, please can you read this proposal and leave comments. Perhaps I should've spoken to you quietly first, but there seem to be so many people confused by this, I wanted to get people's opinion. If you think this suggestion is not feasible, or it's too much work, please just say so. I had presumed that it would be pretty straightforward to implement, but please correct me if I'm wrong! Thanks, Walkerma 05:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg: I noticed that both my bot and Betacommandbot posted message that were meant for your bot's talk page on it's userpage. You may want to have User talk:WP 1.0 bot redirect here, instead of to the bot's userpage, to prevent further things like that or confusion if a human editor wants to leave you a message regarding your bot. — METS501 ( talk) 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For your cool WP 1.0 bot. — Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 02:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC) |
Well, I was afraid of that. So is there any fast way to delete a bunch of subpages at once? -- Prove It (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Oleg. Is this bot (WP 1.0 Bot) operated by you? Because I am really curious about this another bot. I know that MathBot is operated by you, but I'm not very familiar with WP 1. 0 Bot. What's the function of WP 1.0 Bot? I really really want to know more about WP 1.0 Bot. Could you please explain this bot(WP 1.0) briefly? Please reply in my talk page. Thanks in advance, and cheers! Daniel5127 | Talk 04:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for quick response. As I have been reading about your bot (WP 1.0 Bot) on WP 1.0 bot, does this bot always updates an assessment on every wiki project? Is it right? Daniel5127 | Talk 04:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I've been reworking the differential and differential (mathematics) pages so that the latter focuses on calculus and geometry concepts. I'd like to move it to differential (calculus), but don't have the admin rights, although I have moved the old differential (calculus) page to differential (infinitesimal). If you agree with my plan, could you do the move for me? I've sorted out most of the links. Geometry guy 20:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Oleg :) I think of you and Fropuff as my (joint) number one friends here on wikipedia! Do you have any comments on my derivative talk contribution? This is an important page and I don't want to damage it! Geometry guy 21:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, I found your tool on several RfA pages, but I can't seem to figure out how to get the edit summary tables that everyone else seems to have. I put my username in the blank form field, and pressed the button, but all it says is that I have 43% for major edits and 34% for minor edits, sans table. - Pandacomics 23:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Shadow. I am getting to like your Perlwikipedia package more and more (the current one I am using, WWW::MediaWiki::Client, has some bugs and things I don't quite like). I wonder if I could join the developer team, that is, if I could get access to the google code page. About my expertise, I've been running mathbot, a Perl bot, for around a year and nine months now (it has around 50,000 edits I think). If you let me in, I'd first focus on improving the documentation, then once you upload the updated code I'll see if I can contribute with anything. Anyway, wonder what you think. Thanks. You can reply here. (PS: My google account is oleg.alexandrov). Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg,
It seems that we all agree that the name of the category is bad. However, some people would like to delete the category while according to their arguments rename should be enough. Theses categories, in what so ever name, are very important. Please help me to prevent the categories deletion.
Thanks, APH 11:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, In Arabic Wikipedia we need WP 1.0 BOT to work there can you give me the Bot to work or make it work there please?? Menasim( discuss) 08:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there an easy way to tell the WP 1.0 bot to count Category:Bplus-Class_mathematics_articles? There is no row in the table for these right now. I read the instructions, but they didn't clarify the matter. CMummert · talk 15:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The generation process for the table is very similar to the WP 1.0 bot; it uses the same framework. The class and importance categories are loaded using query.php (fetch_articles_cats.pl).
The fields are loaded by using query.php to get a list of backlinks to the articles that {{ maths rating}} uses for the field links. I just copied fetch_articles_cats.pl to a new file and edited that to interface with the backlinks query. This isn't guaranteed to be accurate but I think it will be right 99% of the time. CMummert · talk 05:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Oleg!
Hey, I hate to bother you because I know you're a busy guy. Anyway, I was looking at the new articles from Mathbot's list for today when I saw an inappropriate name change (from "Response bias" to "Response Bias"). So I got curious, and noticed that this new user, Megazodiac, has been busily moving properly named articles to improperly capitalized names all day long. Some of Megazodiac's other edits don't look so hot, either. So I'm dropping you a line, since you have a better idea of what to do about stuff like this than I do. Thanks! DavidCBryant 22:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I changed / to ÷ because / looks like a vertical line on my screen (with IE, mostly default settings). I've now changed the division to a Tex-style fraction to make it even more obvious. I hope this is okay! — 80.177.129.251 09:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Isaac Newton generalized the formula to other exponents by considering an infinite series:
where r can be any complex number (in particular r can be any real number, not necessarily positive and not necessarily an integer), and the coefficients are given by
This is the same as \frac{r!}{k!\,(r-k)!}
factorials are defined for ALL complex numbers, except for negative integers
I don't know why you like to remove relevant information, maybe because you like (I do not know for what reason whatsoever) to deny the definition of non-integer factorials!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bombshell 09:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, now I get it, I apologize for being kinda rude Bombshell 16:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg,
I think you were working on the page covering the Erdös-Renyi model? I'm very much interested in the evolution of G~ (which is still to be completed). Is it planned yet? I can't find it anywhere else on the internet.
Best,
Daan
I just discovered that WP 1.0 bot can be run manually. In the changes log for my project, the bot lists assessment updates on a daily basis. So, what happens if I assess some articles, run the bot once, and then assess some more articles and run the bot a second time all in a single day? Would it be two separate headers, or would the bot just add the second round of assessments to the same day's list? I hope I've been clear with this question, it is really late here. Thanks.-- Danaman5 09:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg. I was just curious what happened to this article. Apparently since the first deletion, there was a deletion review and subsequent second AFD. This resulted in keep, but now the article is mysteriously deleted again! What's going on? -- C S (Talk) 01:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is the complete history and log. Hopefully it answers your question. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Deletion log * 08:48, 23 February 2007 Wizardman (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Arthur Mattuck" (recreation of deleted materal (csd g4)) * 20:04, 23 December 2006 Trialsanderrors (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Arthur Mattuck" (9 revisions restored: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 18) * 21:18, 17 December 2006 Yanksox (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Arthur Mattuck" (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Mattuck) To restore the entire page and its history, leave all checkboxes deselected and click Restore. To perform a selective restoration, check the boxes corresponding to the revisions to be restored and click Restore. Clicking Reset will clear the comment field and all checkboxes. Please make sure that you are following undeletion policy and that you leave a summary in the comment box. Comment: Page history * 23:04, 3 February 2007 . . Alaibot (Talk | contribs | block) (Robot: sorting stub (based on existing categorisation)) * 22:37, 28 December 2006 . . 24.177.112.146 (Talk | block) (improve ext link fmting, +cats) * 17:20, 28 December 2006 . . John254 (Talk | contribs | block) (afd closure as keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Mattuck (2nd nomination)) * 20:05, 23 December 2006 . . Trialsanderrors (Talk | contribs | block) (Start AfD per WP:DRV) * 14:47, 15 December 2006 . . Epolk (Talk | contribs | block) (clean up using AWB) * 22:37, 12 December 2006 . . Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs | block) (afd) * 20:51, 12 December 2006 . . Bcartolo (Talk | contribs | block) (added hangon) * 20:49, 12 December 2006 . . Adam12901 (Talk | contribs | block) * 20:47, 12 December 2006 . . Bcartolo (Talk | contribs | block) (External links) * 20:46, 12 December 2006 . . Bcartolo (Talk | contribs | block) * 20:44, 12 December 2006 . . Bcartolo (Talk | contribs | block) * 20:44, 12 December 2006 . . Bcartolo (Talk | contribs | block) (External links) * 20:43, 12 December 2006 . . Bcartolo (Talk | contribs | block) (←Created page with 'Arthur Mattuck is a Professor of Mathematics at [MIT]. ==External links== *[[http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Mathematics/18-03Spring-2006/VideoLectures/index.htm Differen...')
I have a question about Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Numismatic articles by quality statistics. Pages in this project now have a category class, template, dab, etc. These new classes can be found at Category:WikiProject Numismatics articles. Do you think you can upgrade the bot to identify these classes? Thanks. -- ChoChoPK (球球PK) ( talk | contrib) 08:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Oleg, I have a bit modified the plan of the "Bounded variation" voice, and I have placed it on the discussion page. Also, Sullivan.t.j have added some interesting contents. I found also that our first discussion about this voice in your talk page has disappeared: are you reordering your user talks? :) Daniele.tampieri 11:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. I don't think that I'm ready to do that just yet; the WP:RFA process currently seems to favor editors who do lots of vandalism editing over people who would only occasionally need admin abilities. And like getting tenure, passing an RFA seems to require spending a long time before it hiding one's true opinions and making everyone happy, which I have not been doing. I will be applying for a bot account soon; that at least seems like a rational approval process, and will be much more useful for me. CMummert · talk 13:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Oleg. I have noticed User:Arcfrk, who appears to be new and someone worth making friends with. I don't know how those magical welcome messages appear on new users' talk pages, but I've seen you leave a few. If you get a second, you might pop by his site and say hello. (By the way, can anyone leave those welcome messages or is this some kind of admin thing?) VectorPosse 10:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I have a question of interest, but of little importance: why does WP 1.0 bot report one article in Category:Unassessed-importance Arthropods articles in its summary, when that category has been empty for days? -- Stemonitis 12:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I went tinkering around with the Rock music articles by quality statistics, as someone added a list parameter to the {{ WPRock}} template. This sorts list articles into Category:List-Class rock music articles/ The bot went and made this edit, removing that parameter from the stats. Is there a way to correct this? *May I also ask that you respond on MY talk page? -- Reaper X 16:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi!
Thanks for going over the page on the shifted Gompertz distribution. As it is my first Wikipedia contribution, I guess that other things might be improved as well. If you have any suggestions, please don't hesitate to let me know!
Best Regards,
Daniel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danhoppe ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
I have suggested that Manual of style (mathematics), a redirect page which you created, be deleted as a cross-namespace redirect. If you would like to comment in the discussion, it is found here. -- Black Falcon 00:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I was going to ask Gurch ( talk · contribs) about this, but it seems that he has left us. Is there a process for finding lost pages, such as: pages with improper names, or pages which are not in a category? I was wondering about this because it appears that InuYasha has had its name changed (probably at least twice) in the past and its talk page, Talk:InuYasha, has archives with names like "2004" which do not show up when I do "What links here". Could there be lost archives out there? They also did not have the "talkarchive" template in them until I added it a few days ago. JRSpriggs 06:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Just curious, why is the bot running ever second day and not daily? =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Vandal Fbs. 13 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) moved his user and talk pages to Derecho ( talk · contribs). Is this not a violation of the rules? This was not a change in his user-id, just a page move. JRSpriggs 07:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
"And for example, woman should be out, even though a woman has a monthly cycle." LOL. I did really laugh out loud. -- C S (Talk) 13:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Cheers for all the links on my talkpage, I definately do need to improve my wiki style a bit, I have not done lots of edits on this wiki yet, but I am very keen to learn.
Reaction diffusion is definately one of my biggest interests. I am a programmer though, on the visual-synthesis side of things - not a mathematician, so I probably take a slightly less technical angle on RD than most people who know it.
I was a bit disappointed to see how small the article was so I added a bit more basic info. I also have some original images that I can upload too which I will do soon.
Thanks again for noticing. ( Danwills 06:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC))
Hi Oleg,
I think your change to the article is good, but I should probably rename it Field (algebra) now. Also, skew fields are sometimes just called fields and are a very slight generalization of fields, so there is some likelihood that a person will refer to the field article thinking that, since a skew field is almost the same thing, there must not be an article on skew fields, and they won't bother referring to the disambiguation page. So I think skew fields should be mentioned despite the existence of a disambiguation page. What do you think? Joeldl 02:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg.
Thank you for the "Welcome" message (on my talk page).
Yes, now I have a question. I volunteered a new page Large deviations of Gaussian random functions. It got the tag "need to be wikified". I did some improvements toward this. Now, is it already wikified? Should I remove the tag myself, or not?
Boris Tsirelson 12:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg,
I was the Anonymous Calculus d-Erector before, and I'm sorry for the mass editing. I have reformed, created an acct, and posted my views on Talk:Integral.
Sorry I never read the policies and I hope to be more constructive in future. Thanks for the time! :)
Dear Oleg!
Thank you for your invitation. I've been contributing in Polish branch of Wikipedia ( [2]) since May 2006. When I found an article about a Probabilistic metric space in English Wiki I thought about supplementing it with some information about a metric that was a subject of my PhD thesis.
Funny thing is that it can hardly be called a "metric" as it does not fulfill the first metric axiom, which is in fact the only axiom to be required by other distance functions I know (pseudometric, quasimetric, prametric, ultrametric, etc.).
-- Guswen 14:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Oleg. Thanks for visiting my newly created article on Diagrammatic notation and thanks for correcting the naming problem. You suggested something in the editing history. Something about style. Thanks. Would you mind helping me with my first article? -- Freiddie 14:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this is/was a interesting argument because it assumes less on the reader.
But most importantly:
It seems that in some of the proofs the writers didn't realized that you can only proof this identity after you clearly defined what e^(ix) means.
In this sense arguments like the ones in "using calculus" and "using differential equations" are incomplete, without at least a clear definition any argument becomes an heuristic argument.
I know of three ways of defining e^(ix).
(1) From the complex series of e^(z) defined as sum of z^n/n!
(2) as the limit of n to infinity of (1 + ix/n)^n
(3) or directly as cos(x) + i sin(x)
Either way only after defining e^(ix) is that you should show that it has the properties like e^(ia)*e^(ib)=e^(i(a+b)), or (e^ix)'=ie^(ix) that you would expect it to have, and some writers used fearlessly.
Number (1) is already represented, I think number (2) would be a nice thing to cite since it is analogous to the real case and can also be interpreted geometrically (as Richard Feynman does for a reference). But using (3) is totally misleading because it doesn't show why it should be true.
That is why I think heuristic arguments are needed to provide "a reason" for us to believe that such a thing should be true. Using circular motion seems to me much more simple and much less "out of the blue" then for example the "using calculus" approach.
My opinion is that Euler's formula is central to many different contexts and any effort to make it clearer is for the best. I will also post this on the discussion on the page.
Do you have something to comment on that? Thank You. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ricardo sandoval ( talk • contribs) 22:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
I started a discussion about his RfA usefulness at WT:RFA#Mathbot..., and I thought as the operator you might be interested. Please weigh in, and whack me if there's something obvious I missed. - Amarkov moo! 03:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg - you liked Derivative before. I hope you still like it!! Comments and criticism most welcome as always. Geometry guy 18:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - and thanks for your tidying up! Geometry guy 19:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
There's been a request to archive some of the talk page (up to the GA-discussion). I'm going to give it a go soon: I guess I just create an archive subpage, move the material there, and provide a link. I thought I would mention this to my "mentor", just in case I make a mess of it! Geometry guy 20:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've done the archiving (though not in any fancy way, as there is just one archive page). Take it easy on Oleg - his energies are just spread a bit thinly these days ;-) Thanks for the kind comments. Looks like I ought to click on your link. Geometry guy 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Well I was just teasing :) , but in addition to the above, Oleg put the welcome message on my page, and I have turned to him for his admin rights at least once, so I owe him some respected title, beyond that guy with the bot ;) ! Anyway, I'm now on the list (I saw it before, but my commitment was not as strong then) and am having fun here. I hope you two established editors are too! Geometry guy 21:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This made me laugh a lot! Anyway, esteemed mentor, I just produced a Power rules article only to find you removed proof of functional power rule from Wikipedia:Requested articles/mathematics on the grounds that it is not important :( - I hope you are not too displeased that I made an article anyway! ;)
In the course of doing this, I realised that base (mathematics) (which was previously, and is probably still, a redirect to radix) is flawed because it does not cover the fundamental notion of "base" as the base of exponentiation and the base of a logarithm. Unfortunately, the base/radix story seems to have history, so I have been facing nearly instantantaneous reverts whenever I try to do something... wish me luck! Geometry guy 20:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, absolute power rules, absolutely, rather than just an article on the proof (I agree entirely) so that is what I did. As for base, it seems to have settled down, but I'll certainly consider raising it at WP:talk if it becomes controversial. Geometry guy 12:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
See 128.97.70.46 ( talk · contribs). Regards, alphachimp 20:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Oleg. Sorry to bug you again, but you have the magic wand. ;^>
I think Receiver Operating Characteristic should be named Receiver operating characteristic. Unfortunately, there are real articles at both locations. It looks as if Indon did a cut and paste job after a merge, instead of using the "move" function (this occurred on 31 Jan, 2007).
Anyway, now the article is not connected with its history page. Can you fix that? Thanks! DavidCBryant 13:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I am a bit confused, because I've never copy-pasted. I did surely move the article, but dunno why it looks that way. However, thanks for the clear up. — Indon ( reply) — 17:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi!
seems that "Failed to get the link!" is some error for user Evgen2 at ru.wikipedia.org. Thanks. -- Evgen2 07:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I am new to Wickipedia contribution and I was not aware of the policy that material should have been published in well recognized journals. My contribution was made in good faith with a view to benefit the readers and enhance the value of Wickipedia. Now I know the policy of Wickipedia, and in this case it is likely to be a limitation of Wickipedia. You can read an expert review of my work here: http://www.integralresearch.net/#Expert_Review . Please see page 4 here which establishes the link between standard integral equations and Rao Integral Equations: http://www.integralresearch.net/wps.pdf . It is easily verified. As for naming my result, if my result is very important, then it is appropriate, and I believe it to be so. I am confident that my results will become "well established" in time. I am not in any hurry. I have protected my idea by applying for US patents. In public interest, in order to evaluate the correctness of my idea, if any qualified person volunteers to verify my results on behalf of Wickipedia, I can send one copy of my book free. But you can get a lot of information on my approach here: http://www.integralresearch.net/RTslides.pdf http://www.integralresearch.net/wps.pdf http://www.integralresearch.net/apex.pdf
Lastly, if someone shows that my new method of solution to solve the Fredholm Equation of the First Kind when applied to shift-variant image deblurring is not better than current methods, I will give them $250.
If you volunteers are serious about enhancing Wickipedia, you should restrict your comments to technical merits of my idea and point out technical weaknesses. Keeping the interests of Wickipedia and the users in mind, you can decide whether your want to post my method or not, is upto you.
I appreciate the voluntary service your are rendering to the public. Dr. Muralidhara SubbaRao (Rao) rao@integralresearch.net —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.47.184.148 ( talk) 23:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
Is there any chance that the WP1.0 bot could add the user that made the change when it produces an assessment log?
-- TimNelson 01:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out that preference. I did not know about it. Danny 03:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
More ideas:
-- TimNelson 09:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
There seems to have gone something wrong in creating the log for the biography project on 1 April. See here. Er rab ee 19:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Why did you remove the reference to the Geometric Programming tutorial on the posynomial page? Johngcarlsson 08:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johngcarlsson ( talk • contribs) 08:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
Hi Oleg --
I just redesigned the differential algebra page, incorporating the material from derivation (abstract algebra). I think it makes sense to redirect the search for derivation (abstract algebra) to differential algebra. Can you help?
Jessica —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shellgirl ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
Thanks! And you are welcome, it was fun. Shellgirl 04:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just posted a comment on the talk page for the wallpaper gallery that (apparently) you wrote a bot for, and I'd like you to read that comment; to summarize, I suggest a method for that category where it's easy to suggest someone remove an img w/o having to muck about understanding how to edit the gallery myself. Sure, perhaps I should, but I won't. It's my personal opinion that the users / creators of a bot should be responsible for the content it generates, including removing inappropriate additions, but that's just mho. I'm sure this has all been discussed to death somewhere around here, but I'm not the kind of editor who cares about that sort of thing. Just offering my 0.02USD, pls have a look at the talk page (sry no link, but it's very late for me :) if you would, but no reply to me is necessary, however you decide to respond to this. Unless you feel like replying on my talk page, anyways, I'm too lazy to check back here. :) BTW, great work, keep it up. Eaglizard 10:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Whould you please update this page [ [3]] with the bot from this day on. Thanks. -- Bohater 13:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
In regards to the two articles: Approximation error and Percent difference. If you read Percent difference, you would then have understood how there could possible be a difference between finding the "percent error" of two values, and finding the "percent difference" between two values. They do have two different English terms for a reason and I know from experience that these two techniques are repeatedly thought of as the same thing. This is an Unofficial Warning that you cannot just remove tags, or worse yet, DELETE an entire article without some sort of consensus. I look forward to discussing the matter with you and others. Gilawson 02:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, and I take your comment in the spirit it was offered. I detest, yet cannot help but acknowledge, the requirements of political practicality. I would be only too glad to adhere to them were I conducting actual affairs of state, but something in me always screams 'It's just Wikipedia!' I am devoted to this project, but it is still just an encyclopedia project, and not a body politic. It can only suffer from taking itself too seriously. Perhaps my choice to carry out the promotion myself in this instance was an instance of upholding a principle to my own detriment; but I maintain that the decision was not just my own, and moreover that it was entirely justified. These facts belie any appearance of conflict of interest. I suppose I am, in this very trivial sense, an obstinate idealist; yet I do appreciate your advice. This may not be a battle worth fighting. — Dan | talk 06:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I support your comment to
Talk:Cubic equation, Complete formula. Please draw your attention to my discussion commencing with ˝The schoolbook lecture..˝ where, in my opinion, few significant unrevealed contributions are described. But, as a beginner in Wikipedia editing, I have no idea how to paste drawings and tables originally designed by means of Microsoft Equation 3.0, Word Drawing tool, and Excel (for example 3×3 and 4×4 determinants aren't presented at La Tex). I squandered days, nights and nerves editing these abstracts as such. Therefore I am forced to ask you as an administrator for the advice how and whether to proceed.
Besides the determinants Primeval Cubic should be emphasized i.e. find its place at main article since it enables graphical resolving achieved by means of simple shifting straight line(s) and Y-axis as well as since it simplifies application of hyperbolic and trigonometric substitutions.
Regards Mladen Stambuk
89.111.255.142
07:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to your advice. Meanwhile few improvements of the abstracts are worked out (see 6. All complete roots...). I am surprised that you found my complete formula (20) in comparison to (8) of main article (that is not complete) to be too complicated. Also my formula (21,2) should be compared to one quoted under Factorization.
I hoped everyone could recognize significance of Primeval Cubic 4x3 ± 3x = h being actually Embryonic one making f.e. Chebyshev radicals to be unneeded. As an aged (68) beginner I don't know how to make an account and why it would be simpler for me f.e. to draw Cubic parabola and straight lines - let me know contacts in this area. Cheers Mladen
89.111.253.80
22:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
As someone who has contributed to the talk page discussion on List of publications in philosophy and/or that article's previous deletion debate, I thought you might be interested in participating in its new nomination for deletion which can be found here. Thanks. - KSchutte 17:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome you sent, evidently in response to my editing of the "reflexive space" page. Wikipedia is something I find myself using with increasing frequency, and I've decided to express my gratitude through contribution. One's gotta start somewhere. -- J.G. Gagelman 14:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Oleg, the 1.0 bot hasn't updated Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Harry Potter articles by quality log in 5 days. Is this hiatus expected or is it just being slow? Best, Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 01:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution to Category:Systems in the past. There is currently a Call for Deletion for this category. If you would like to contribute to the discussion, you would be very welcome. In particular, if you would like to save this category, please add a Keep entry with your "signature" using "~~~~". Please do this soon if possible since the discussion period is very short. Thank you for your interest if you can contribute. Regards, Jonathan Bowen 18:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg,
Thanks for your welcome message. Thanks for your welcome message. I am a long time user of e-mail and usenet, but have some trouble adjusting to the talk pages system. Can you give me any advice? Grotendeels Onschadelijk 03:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg
You might want to fix Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. It lists both WP:Universitites and WP:University. One is an incomplete duplicate of the other. Happy editing. Valentinian T / C 10:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg
I hope you agree there is nothing objectionable about listing the number of known digits of the important mathematical constants. You left your note on my talk page after I added the references. Are there still open issues? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rbk ( talk • contribs).
I left a note on the talk page. Am I supposed to leave a note here as well? People have reverted my stuff without any notes to me at all. I'm fairly new and just trying to follow the crowd. It can be very frustrating sometimes. -- Jim77742 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg,
I've just corrected the
Stern-Brocot tree article to point at
Moritz Stern instead of (incorrect) Moriz Stern. So now you can remove Moriz Stern form the
Mathbot's collection of red links. --
CiaPan
18:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, firstly thank you for including Wikiproject Townsville in your bot's work of compiling stats. Secondly, if you can, could you please add a lists column to the Townsville articles by quality statistics template and add it to your bot's program for automatic updates? Thanks, Alec -( answering machine) 08:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Hi Alec. Unfortunately the bot does not support lists and other columns beyond the default. The reason is that bot's purpose is to evaluate articles only by quality and importance, and any changes to the current way of doing things should be coordinated with all the other projects. Perhaps you could use the example of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics (see that page, towards the bottom) which uses its own bot to generate a statistics table specific to its own needs and distinct from the default table? Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 15:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, the {{ WikiProject Russia}} currently puts articles in e.g. Category:Stub-Class russia articles. Note the small cap r in russia. If I wanted to change that, would you need to do something to WP1.0 bot so that the articles do not all appear in the Category:Unassessed-Class russia articles? Er rab ee 13:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea, but the recently created {{ TOClimit}} can now do it automatically with CSS trickery (the RfA TOC is running limited-to-3 at the moment, although it doesn't actually make any difference). So it seems that Mathbot's busy on a task that's now redundant (sorry for pre-empting your bot's work, I appreciate it and Mathbot's RfA edit-summary-usage-summary is a welcome addition to my watchlist). I just thought you might want to know... -- ais523 16:36, 20 April 2007 ( U T C)
Hi,
While I agree that the links were perhaps in the wrong section, I do think they are very helpful, especially to people that have large non-linear non-convex problems, which Maple/Mathematica are not very good at.
Could you please return the links? Probably the right place to put them would be external links.
Thank you,
Domagoj
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.189.141.19 ( talk) 18:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
Your Mathbot's tool does not seem to be working. This is the one that shows edit summary usage based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits. Simply south 22:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
i guess it really doesnt matter what it should look like; its just I'm a little OCD and i like everything to be perfect looking :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaxha ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
Mathbot is also used to maintain lists of 'what is missing from this category' on several articles, ex. list of szlachta (using this script). I couldn't find a 'how-to' (even through I probably found it years ago). Do you know where it is? We should add it to the bot user page... That said, usage is simple: add the above script targeting the talk page (with _ instaed of spaces), and follow instruction it leaves. Btw, can you add a switch that would make the bot look through *all* subcategories? I want to use it to check what articles on list of subject topics are not categorized in that subject fields, and this may be quite tiresome if I have to add every subcategory manually...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Oleg, thanks for inviting me to engage in discussion. My mother did some consulting for Encyclopedia Britannia back in the 1990's and I've been an encyclopedia aficionado for decades, so it's time for me to get serious about learning the Wiki-ropes and engaging in debate.
I created two articles yesterday but I have been able to find only one of them typing the name of each article into the "FIND" search box. Can you explain why this might be happening?
The two articles are: Hajo Holborn and Medal of Liberty. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dfloren1 ( talk • contribs) 19:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
Oleg, if you want to look at the Medal of Liberty page, it is accessible by typing the URL into your browser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Liberty
or clicking on a link at the bottom of the Hanna Holborn Gray page.
Yet, the article can not be found using the main "FIND" search box.
I'd say this was odd, but everything has its reason, however obscured from my feeble understanding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dfloren1 ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
Hi Oleg. I noticed this article showed up in the categories 3-manifolds and Geometric Topology. I don't believe this incident concerns papers actually in these areas (definitely not the former, and at best only arguably in the latter). I also don't believe it's helpful to put this kind of article in what is primarily a category for mathematics articles. For people, we have the relevant specialist categories. This article is clearly an oddball, but I would suggest some other math category (perhaps to be created) would be more relevant. -- C S (Talk) 22:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, could you move Fermat's Last Theorem to Fermat's last theorem over a redirect. The page was originally there, but was moved to the current location to reflect the dominant capitalization used in the article. However, I have fixed this now, following WP and WP Mathematics conventions. I would do it myself but there is one entry in the target page history, so it needs an admin. I will be happy to fix any redirects. Geometry guy 21:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought you might agree on this! Geometry guy 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Now for something else that is on my mind...
I visited this page recently and was surprised by what I found. This page should be a clear summary of what the project is about and how to contribute, but it didn't help me much when I first arrived, and it still isn't as helpful as it could be. Two issues:
Geometry guy 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I've made a fairly conservative update. More could be done, but I agree that more substantial changes should be discussed on the talk page first. I also updated the list of mathematics articles. Geometry guy 18:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Etc. -- Thus Spake Anittas 08:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It does not seem to be working again and for the past few hours has been showing whichever users' edit summary usage to be 0 based on the las 0 major edits and 0 minor edits. Simply south 18:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
|
Thank you, Oleg Alexandrov, for your support on my recent RfA, which recently passed 54/1/1. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations. I will certainly take the constructive criticism I recieved to heart. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. Thank you again· -- Selket Talk 18:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC) |
Their band got back in 2006 and I think that you should write that. I also think that you should write about the awards that they won and put some images in there. This page sucks!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.186.72.97 ( talk) 04:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
Thanks didn't know about links on disambiguation pages. Makes sense though. Strawberry Island 15:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks, Oleg. It's nice to know that my edits are helping. Cheers, Doctormatt 20:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Oleg, I would like to add a comparison plot of the Lebesgue functions for uniform grid points and Chebyshev points to the Lebesgue constant (interpolation) page. I have generated a figure using MATLAB but am unsure of how to upload it and specify licensing. I wish to make it public domain. Is there any problem with having used a commercial product to produce the plot? What export format should I use also? SVG, does not seem to work for exporting. Thanks!
Gregvw 09:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
print('-dpng', '-r300', 'my_picture.png');
print('-deps', '-r300', 'my_picture.eps');
Hi Oleg Alexandrov,
I was looking through some of PDFbot's recent edits when I came across one where PDFbot was hopelessly confused. It was an edit made to Thailand on the 6th reference ( here is a direct link).
The problem here is not PDFbot, but rather a compounding of vandalism that has gone unnoticed. As you can see, reference 6 is very incoherent.
I tried sleuthing through the page's history, but for some of the damage (like the word "onouioioo"), it is not clear where it was introduced; the damage must have been introduced a long time ago.
Do you know of any good tools that would help me fix this part of Thailand? « D. Trebbien ( talk) 20:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, you welcomed me very early on in my Wikipedia involvement when I didn't even know how to respond☺! Thank you very much for this; it made me feel like I was "part of the team". Now I help to welcome others. « D. Trebbien ( talk) 20:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, I started a discussion at the mathematics project talk page concerning semiprotecting the article Geometry, which is vandalised so often that it's nearly not being developed at all (the tally of productive edits out of the last 100 edits is 2 major edits, 3 minor edits, 2 bot link additions, the rest is vandalism, cranks, and reverts). The majority of the responses were in favour of semiprotection, with the exception of CMummert, who offered an admin perspective against it. I was wondering what you think about this, and if you agree with protection argument, whether you can use your awesome administrative powers to effect it. Thank you very much! Arcfrk 21:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Since I'm reverting your edits, in one case again and for the same reason; please do not blank page multiple times for the same reason without discussion- obviously someone disagreed with your blunt assessment and choice to simply remove content. the reason, as placed in the history previously, is that it is no less unencyclopeadic than one half or a list of quarter terms. further, and this may be a function of not being a native english speaker, but a unilateral declaration of "does not deserve its own article" comes across as unnecessarilly abrasive and arrogant- especially when it explicitly ignores edit history.
cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darker Dreams ( talk • contribs) 21:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
Hi Oleg :) Could you move bilinear operator to bilinear map, which is currently a redirect, but has a (very short) edit history? I think there is consensus for such a move (the new name is less ambiguous, cf. binary operation, and more consistent with related articles). Thanks - Geometry guy 19:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Oleg ;)
I am trying to revive the Collaboration of the Week I am hitting everybody on the WP:WPM with this "I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks-- Cronholm144 23:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)" and sometimes a personal message. Input would be appreciated
Many thanks, Oleg. I needed that! :)
Hi Oleg Thx for your notes, of course you are right about the style, but I don't understand some content changes you have made:
(:-_) Adam majewski 16:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The degree of a rational function is the maximum of the degrees of its constituent polynomials P and Q.
It is from wikipedia article about rational function section complex analysis -- Adam majewski 20:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, User:Cronholm144 has just pointed out to me an erratic change in the behaviour of Minestrone. He was editing as normal up to 06:55 this morning, then did not contribute again until 16:50, since when his only actions have been to blank his own user and talk pages with offensive edit summaries, and leave offensive messages on the talk page of User:ArnoldReinhold: see [4]. He has never left messages on this user's talk page before (or vice-versa as far as I can tell). They interacted recently on Trigonometry, but I see no sign of an edit conflict, just a few attempts each to improve the article. Cronholm thinks that Minestrone's account has been compromised and wonders how to proceed. My only thought is to warn ArnoldReinhold that this might not be Minestrone, and to keep an eye on the account for further abuse, but I'd be glad for the input of an experienced admin! Geometry guy 20:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey Oleg do you know who designed the Maths rating's templates for WP 1.0, I am trying to help out [5] Anton with his attempt to synthesize the WP:Numbers project template with the math template, but he is having some problems. All he needs is to be pointed in the right direction, thanks-- Cronholm144 22:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha, who knew? I didn't ask you because I had been spamming you with my blather on your talk page so much recently, but it looks like it always comes right back to you;)-- Cronholm144 23:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. sorry Oleg it looks like I have begun to monopolise on your talk page as well
my friend:
How do you type in mathematics on the page? Can you type mathematics in an email?
---jesusonfire
Depending on your computer's operating system, there might be various applications you can use that will take TeX code in an email and with a simple click convert it into an embedded image (PNG, PDF, etc.). I only know about the ones for OS X, like Equation Service. -- C S (Talk) 09:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Oleg,
In view of the known identity abuses at WP, an user who wishes to remain anon (which they do for their own benefit) should not venture into questionable edits. I think this could be a self-enforced rule, for fairness. I am reverting the rating anyway because I don't agree with it. Hope this is useful. Edgerck 07:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
Oleg Alexandrov has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Love, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
Congratulations Oleg!-- Cronholm144 00:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg,
You recently posted a brief message on my talk page welcoming me, and also praising the utility of the Edit Summary. I'm curious as to whether there is a specific context in which I displayed ignorance of this particular marvel of collaborative editing, or if it was just a general proviso :D.
Regards,
Alex —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexander.fairley ( talk • contribs).
Oleg You complain about links to mathopenref. The reason the material is not in Wikipedia itself is that I use Java animations a lot, and when I put them in wikipedia pages they are deleted because Java applets are not approved. So what should I do? I am certainly not a commercial venture ( I wish it were so). I stand to gain no commercial value from my work.
Perhaps there are too many links. I will remove some a cut down to just a few. But my intentions are simply to add value.
Perhaps we should all should start to think about how to move Wikipedia math articles beyond just static text and on to the next stage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.151.150 ( talk • contribs).
Thanks. Yes, I meant the Laplace-de Rham operator. Sorry for not making it clear. Tiphareth 09:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
"≤" can be confusing for a preorder that is not anti-symmetric, it may suggest that a ≤ b implies that a < b or a = b.-- Patrick 00:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi... Mathbot seems to be missing the first AFD on the day log when it updates Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old. E.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 19's first AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camerupt, which is still open, but isn't showing up. This is also happening with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly, Do You Want to Know a Secret?. If this helps, DFBot's script at User:Dragons flight/AFD summary/All recognizes them, but doesn't seem to parse them correctly. Hopefully this is easy to fix, if not I'll make a note for closers to manually check to make sure the first AFD has been closed before removing a day from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old. -- W.marsh 13:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
There are two definitions of infinite sequence in Wikipedia which are not equivalent: a function from {1, 2, ...} to S, and one where an infinite number of terms are non-zero. Either one should be changed, or at least this should be pointed out. Please do not obstruct finding a solution for this.-- Patrick 07:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Have you ever investigated why the version of WWW:MediaWiki:Client in the WP 1.0 bot setup fails to edit articles that have been deleted? I don't want to start looking into it if you know that it's a hopeless cause. CMummert · talk 01:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
--- Client.pm.b2 2007-05-27 00:22:25.000000000 -0400 +++ Client.pm 2007-05-27 00:29:05.000000000 -0400 @@ -91,6 +91,7 @@ use constant EDIT_SUBMIT_NAME => 'wpSave'; use constant EDIT_SUBMIT_VALUE => 'Save Page'; use constant EDIT_TIME_NAME => 'wpEdittime'; +use constant EDIT_STARTTIME_NAME => 'wpStarttime'; use constant EDIT_TOKEN_NAME => 'wpEditToken'; use constant EDIT_WATCH_NAME => 'wpWatchthis'; use constant EDIT_MINOR_NAME => 'wpMinoredit'; @@ -591,6 +592,8 @@ my $url = $self->_filename_to_action_url($filename); my $ref = $self->_get_ref_filename($filename); my $edit_time = $self->{server_date}; + my $start_time = $self->{server_start_date}; + my $edit_token = $self->{server_token}; # take field names from defined constants my $textbox = TEXTAREA_NAME; @@ -598,6 +601,7 @@ my $subname = EDIT_SUBMIT_NAME; my $subvalue = EDIT_SUBMIT_VALUE; my $timename = EDIT_TIME_NAME; + my $starttime_name = EDIT_STARTTIME_NAME; my $tokenname = EDIT_TOKEN_NAME; my $watchbox = EDIT_WATCH_NAME; print { $self->{debug_fh} } " to $url.\n"; @@ -607,6 +611,7 @@ $comment => $self->{commit_message}, $subname => $subvalue, $timename => $edit_time, + $starttime_name => $start_time, $tokenname => $edit_token, # $watchbox => 1, ] @@ -624,6 +629,7 @@ my $doc = $res->content; my $text = $self->_get_wiki_text($doc); $self->{server_date} = $self->_get_edit_date($doc); + $self->{server_start_date} = $self->_get_start_date($doc); $self->{server_token} = $self->_get_edit_token($doc); return $text; } @@ -649,6 +655,19 @@ return $date; } +sub _get_start_date { + my ($self, $doc) = @_; + my $p = HTML::TokeParser->new(\$doc); + my $date = 0; + while (my $tag = $p->get_tag('input')) { + next unless $tag->[1]->{type} eq 'hidden'; + next unless $tag->[1]->{name} eq 'wpStarttime'; + $date = $tag->[1]->{value}; + } + return $date; +} + + sub _get_edit_token { my ($self, $doc) = @_; my $p = HTML::TokeParser->new(\$doc);
This is awesome! I've been hating this bug for a couple of years now. I'd suggest you submit the bug fix to Mark Jaroski, the author of WWW-Mediawiki-Client. I dealt with him in the past, he's a very nice guy and will be happy to accept the bug fix.
By the way, is the patch against the newest version, 0.31, of the client? Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 16:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. I'm having trouble getting perlwikipedia to work correctly. I put a request in at User talk:Shadow1/perlwikipedia#More tech support. If you could look it over, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 14:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be a useful and needed list: any chance you could ask your friend Mathbot to update it regularly (say once a week)? Geometry guy 20:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
That is what interests me, yes, but I'm not sure about other users. How about updating the big picture once a month? Geometry guy 23:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Oleg, I unknowingly reversed your reversal of the notation for partial derivatives. It is my understanding that the subscript closest to the function name is the first derivative taken. For example, in you first differentiate wrt x and then wrt y. Perhaps we should open this up to discussion? Jhausauer 21:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey Oleg, I saw your nice additions to neighbourhood. Could you do something similar for Codomain and Image (mathematics). I added my weak attempt to their respective talk pages, but it is not nearly article quality. If you don't have time I completely understand. Also, what is the name of the software you use to create those images, I would like to become a math wikifairy if I can. Thanks -- Cronholm144 03:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I should read before I speak... inkscape, thanks muchly!-- Cronholm144 03:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll work with both, thanks for the help. :)-- Cronholm144 03:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's number one, but you can see the problem. The text doesn't render(at least for me). I released it under GFDL so I think you can edit it. I also put jpeg version on the Image (mathematics) talk page. Cheers and thanks for the pointers.-- Cronholm144 05:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much, I'll do so now :) -- Cronholm144 09:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've filled in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/David Eppstein. If you have any feedback for me, something you think should be changed in my answers before it gets submitted, please let me know; otherwise, you can go ahead and submit it. I'm going to be traveling next week, though, so if my active participation in the debate would be required it might be better to wait until the following week. — David Eppstein 07:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Using Danny's RfA as something to compare with is probably not a good idea. That one introduced the inovative idea of bureaucrat chat (thanks to Taxman), but overall could have been handled much better I think. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 16:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I've started to remove links to existing articles at Wikipedia:Missing science topics before I noticed that it used to be done by Mathbot some time ago. There are plenty of blue links at math topics so I was wondering if the bot is going to go through these lists again? Jogers ( talk) 18:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your welcome message and for the good format you have done on the article. I am a french teacher beginning on the english wikipedia and my syntax is not very sure. So thanks again for all your work. Have a good day. ENRGO 10:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Oleg,
Thanks for your kind message regarding my first post (Differential Equation -- 20th Century Uses). I am a lecturer at Northeastern University in Boston in the School of Continuing and Professional Studies and at Endicott College (communication). I hope to make some useful contributions to Wikipedia regarding mathematics, computers, robotics, information theory, telecommunications and intelligent agents, which are my areas of interest.
Best wishes,
Andrew Spano
Hi Oleg. In your last edit summary for Neighborhood (mathematics), you asked about deleted neighborhoods. I have heard this term before, and a quick Google Books search confirms that there are references for this usage. (It seems to be more common in complex analysis than in topology, though.) VectorPosse 18:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I have responded to your threats about the infimum limits and supremum limits. I made the trivial change that you requested and responded to your concerns in the discussion. Please review. I hope this is to your satisfaction. -- TedPavlic 13:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Oops -- sorry. I'll try to remember to be more formal; thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbarth ( talk • contribs)
I am having problems with query.php. For example I can't load the contents of 'Category:Stub-Class mathematics articles'. I get the error pi_badpageids, which is interesting because I can't find that string anywhere in the source. Have you run into this with WP 1.0 bot? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 16:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I verified with [6] that this affects WP 1.0 bot as well - it says it fails to fetch the second continuation of Category:Stub-Class mathematics articles until it gives up on the 10th attempt and moves on to the next continuation. If you find anything out, please let me know. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 21:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No, Oleg, I am afraid you are wrong, you have missed a subtle point. The way it is explained on the page, it says that the distance from one equivalence class to another is defined BECAUSE THE REAL NUMBERS ARE COMPLETE. But how can you use the completenesss of the real numbers to prove that the completion of the rationals is the real numbers? I certainly agree that once the real numbers are known to be complete, then one can use the more straightforward procedure to perform the completion of any other metric space. But you can NOT use the completeness of the real numbers in CONSTRUCTING the real numbers. This is why I made the remark about "avoiding circularity". The right way is to define the equivalence relation using the zero distance relation to put sequences in the equivalence class (and then, in the case of completing the rationals, strictly speaking, one should prove that the set of equivalence classes form a complete totally ordered field, which identifies with the real numbers). This is done with some care in Spivak's book for example. This is not a matter of style or taste, it is a matter of mathematical correctness and accuracy. What is in the reverted article is faulty. Messagetolove 16:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Messagetolove 19:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Messagetolove 19:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
See User talk:CBM#Importance vs priority. Any comments? (I guess this is not an issue for the WP 1.0 bot, but it doesn't do any harm to make sure ;) Geometry guy 17:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Carl and I have now implemented the changeover from importance to priority. I noticed a possible effect on WP 1.0 bot: will it automatically fix the links at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Mathematics articles by quality statistics? It isn't very important because I've turned the old pages into redirects, but it's nice to tidy up sometimes... Geometry guy 20:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Mathbot is insisting that this AfD discussion is still open when it's been closed. You may want to review and see what assumption is tripping it up; at a guess, it may be because <!--Template:Afd top is lacking the closing -->, but naturally I have no idea how it determines that a discussion has been closed.
Cheers, and thanks for the good work on the bot! It's invaluable. — Madman bum and angel ( talk – desk) 22:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for supporting my request for adminship and for your expression of confidence in me. The RfA was successful and I am now an admin. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon ( Talk) 05:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, I must admit that you have surprised me by removing 'merge' tag in Dual cone, while stating your point of view in the summary of the edit. I think it was rather dismissive on your part, quite contrary to my impression of you as a Wikipedian with fine understanding of Wikiquette. I've looked at talk pages for both articles, and this issue has not been discussed, but perhaps, it should be. This is what tags are used for, or at least so I thought. Arcfrk 01:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem! I guessed it was a misunderstanding, and I didn't realize that the 'merge' tag must be accompanied by an explanation (I see a lot of tags without explanations). But first a procedural issue, let us restore the tag and carry out the discussion at the talk page of the article, so that it may be viewed by other interested parties, OK? Arcfrk 02:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your message on my talk page. I agree with your suggestion, and have just moved the page to One-to-one (disambiguation). -- Edcolins 15:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Oleg.
I was roaming Wikipedia when I stumbled across the article for Stephen Hawking (the cosmologist). Someone had edited it and wrote (and I quote): "Stephen Cripple legs Hawking... is a British top class athlete and winner of the 2004 Olympics."
I was utterly disgusted to see something so offensive especially on Wikipedia. I have full conviction that this is not representative of the organisation at all, and I think it is very likely that there are some rogues roaming.
I would like to make a request to the relevant authorities that whoever made this change should be banned. (1. I am surprised it was not altered until I saw it; and 2. I have consequently changed the article to how it was before using a cached link from Google.)
How do I go about this?
Thanks in advance.
PS I have a print-screen image of the page with the rude comments on, as proof of my claims. If you want, I can post it up, but I'm unsure how to attach (I'm a newbie user).
Natural Philosopher 14:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
_____________________
Thanks for your comments.
I have checked that the article has been restored to the latest correct edit using the History tab (I didn't know about that before).
I also now know the username of the member who did this. However, he does not have a user page. Is there any way that I put his name on a warning list or something like that?
Thank you.
Natural Philosopher 15:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
___________________
Many thanks for your advice and assistance in this matter, Oleg.
Natural Philosopher 21:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "merge", "fact", "cleanup" etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 17:10 9 June 2007 (GMT).
Hi... I wasn't sure if you already knew it or not, but WP 1.0 bot hasn't touched the assessments for WikiProject Louisville or WikiProject Kentucky (and possibly other projects) for six days. I hope the bot is doing ok. Thanks! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that, Oleg. I didn't realize my console setup would screw around with unicode when I edited something else on Wikipedia. I'll have to be more circumspect from now on. Thanx for the heads-up.
Pazouzou 19:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Oleg
Thanks muchly for your help with "Product Integral" plus your suggestions. There is so much in Wikipedia that I was feeling a bit lost.
I was hoping to contribute something on "dx-less integrals" (you'll have to look then up at www.geocities.com/multigrals2000 and download the appropriate word doc) and the "fair bet paradox" but I'm wondering if it might "be sailing too close to the breeze". Will concentrate on adding to Product Integral for now.
Again, thanks for your help
Daryl Williams 04:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
P.S: Liked your webpage as well.
P.P.S: Could wiki-mathematicians possibly help with dx-less integrals? Everyone I've shown them to can't figure them out. Daryl Williams 04:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Will do. Daryl Williams 23:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg,
you added a picture of a normal vector field to vector field. Since the vectors are normal to the surface everywhere, the vector field is effectively a scalar field. It's a section of the trivial real line bundle. Since vector bundles have their own article, I don't think this picture is appropriate (or at least problematic) for the vector field article. Let's stick to tangent vector fields. What do you think? -- MarSch 09:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
There are two problems with my pictures:
if I find anything I'll tell you
-- Toobaz 14:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you modify the bot from using page names such as Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chess articles by quality statistics to using Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chess articles by quality/statistics? That would create handy back links to the statistics and log pages too. Currently the those pages do not link to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chess articles by quality which is, in my opinion, more essential than linking to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team which is what they do. -- ZeroOne ( talk | @) 15:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I corrected this section but you incorrectly labelled those corrections as wrong. Again: if v is less than escape velocity the object WILL BE IN AN ELIPTICAL ORBIT. You write "falls back to earth in a parabola" but miss the entire point. The only reason any object falls back to the earth is because it is not a point mass, otherwise any object would orbit. Satellites, for example, ARE IN ORBIT. Right? Can we agree? Guess what: their velocity is less than escape velocity, otherwise, by definition, they would not be in orbit. You think a satellite in orbit has a velocity equal to escape velocity. THEN HOW DO SATELLITES ORBIT AT DIFFERENT ALTITUDES? Answer: any velocity less than escape velocity is an elliptical orbit. Orbit is, by definition, a bounded energy system. If an object has a v equal to escape speed then it is no longer a bounded system and cannot be in orbit. If v is equal to escape speed then the object obeys a parabolic trajectory and escapes (duh) an infinite distance from the system. If v is greater than the escape speed than the object obeys a hyperbolic orbit.
Again:
I try to contribute to this site and a moron who doesn't understand basic physics (and yet is supposedly a grad student) over-writes it. That is frustrating. Please stick to editing things you have some basic knowledge of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.95.124 ( talk • contribs)
This is correct. The point mass I was referring to is the earth itself. Again, if the earth were a point mass, any object with any velocity less than escape speed would be in an elliptical orbit. Because the earth is not a point mass, but has finite dimensions, paths that would otherwise be elliptical orbits collide with the body of the earth. This is irrelevant, however, because "conic sections and gravity" has to do with orbital dynamics, in which all these masses are defined to be point masses, not the kinematics of a person standing on the earth's surface. So, one more time: 1. if v < escape speed, the object will be in an elliptical orbit. 2. if v = escape speed, the object will have a parabolic trajectory and not return to the planet (i.e. IT IS NOT IN AN ORBIT). 3. if v > escape speed, the object will have a hyperbolic trajectory and not return, obviously. I have no problem with the fact that wikipedia is often wrong. The problem I have is when a physicist makes a correction to a section about physics and someone who obviously has never taken a basic introductory freshman physics course overwrites those corrections because of his own gross incompetence. In order for an object to be in an orbit it must have a negative energy--i.e., it must be a bound system. When v = escape speed the object is not bound and it CANNOT BE IN ORBIT. I can't believe these basic misunderstandings of such simple physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.55.200.20 ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 2007 June 15
Oleg, that is only true under a constant field, i.e., one that does not change in strength with altitude. The gravitational field, however, does change with distance, giving a potential energy that changes with 1/r. Thus, a man who throws a ball in the air only perceives a parabola because for this very small altitude change the field is roughly constant. It would, in fact, be an elliptical orbit if you took the earth to be a point mass, as you should, and accounted for the fact that the gravitational field is changing with altitude. This section is not about kinematics under fixed gravitational fields. It is about gravitational fields over very large distances (i.e., significantly greater than the size of a planet). This seems to be the source of confusion. You are looking at this in the wrong domain (a person on a planet rather than orbiting bodies). As I mentioned before, in order for a body to orbit it must have a bound energy--i.e., taking potential energy to be defined as 0 at infinite distance, and negative for anything less than infinite distance, the "negative energy" contributed by this potential energy must be greater in magnitude than the positive kinetic energy (1/2 m v^2). If they are equal in magnitude, thus giving a total energy of 0, then the system is no longer "bound" and the object proceeds in a parabolic trajectory. This occurs when v = v_escape. When total energy is actually positive (v > v_escape) the trajectory is hyperbolic. Only when total energy is negative (v < v_escape) is the system bound, and the shape is always elliptical in this condition. Again, in all of these cases, it is assumed that the distances are large enough for the gravitational field to be varying--i.e., the scale is large enough to allow 1/r to make a difference. For this purpose, planets are taken as point masses. --unsigned
JRSpriggs, awesome job at Euclidean geometry. Also, the way you wrote things the article no longer contradicts itself; a while ago at one place in the article it was claimed that the trajectory was an ellipse, and somewhere below that was a parabola. I agree that talking about comets orbiting the sun would be a good idea as the whole thing with the Earth could still be confusing. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 15:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_14#Category:Good_articles_by_quality. Geometry guy 10:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I was told that you are in charge of this particular bot, so hopefully you can help me with a problem. I was assessing articles for the SFBA Project when I noticed that the statistics table wasn't updating. I found the log and saw that for some reason, the bot had stopped checking on June 4th. I'm quite new to the project and I'm not sure what could have caused it to stop. Any help would be appreciated. =] MissMJ 20:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I created a page with the above title and I think I chose the article title poorly and I would like to change it to say Military Operations of Iraq 2003 to current-Alphabetical - Kumioko
Hi Oleg, Do I need to do anything specific to clean up the article? Thanks/Brian Bwestwoo 14:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
In the Biography log, the page Lynne Arriale is listed as removed from the Biography project. But it still has the Bio banner on the talk page, and the only thing that happened to it was that someone added the listas clause to the WPBiography banner. The links to the talk page also indicate the page has been removed from the Bioproject, where that clearly is not the case. Something strange is going on here. Er rab ee 23:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your help with the ampersand. The bot did what it was supposed to once, but i think it is having problems with "&" again. it still only updates texas a/ Thanks again for your help Oldag07 01:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey Oleg, do you know what math articles would benefit most from illustration? I am on a drawing kick (along with about ten other things) and I would like to knock the most important/needed images out first. -- Cronholm 144 15:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... I might do the same with mathbot's list. Although I have made a habit of remaking bad png pictures as svgs, and it seems that there is no end to the work in that arena (just type svg into commons and look at the articles needing replacement). I think I might also go through my books and see if they have any particularly good images that I can reproduce as svgs. That is, of course, if I have time. I need to finish grading E and I want to work on integral and I want to write articles on Hodge manifolds and the Poincaré-Birkhoff theorem... I think I might be spreading myself too thin. Anyway, let me know if you want me to doodle anything(assuming that you don't want to do it yourself) I find it a welcome distraction :) Cheers -- Cronholm 144 15:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a gallery Oleg? A gallery would give me something to compete against :) and give you a place to show off some of your work. -- Cronholm 144 15:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I should have seen it earlier, but I was too distracted by the article about intelligent falling. :)-- Cronholm 144 15:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
62 in you gallery(only some!?), 30 in mine (admittedly over half were crafted as png replacements, but never-mind that), (Ignoring the facts) I am halfway there! ;)-- Cronholm 144 19:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Darn, I read that quasi-crystalline article about half a year ago and thought I didn't need to look... I will leave the old pic up for now while I make the new one.-- Cronholm 144 13:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I know about this feature, but I copied the style used in the published work. It works out once you start putting them together. BTW I don't know what happened with my grammar in that caption. I must have been staring at the screen too long. I am almost done with the final illustration and I think it looks pretty good. I think I am going to make three versions frame only, tiles only, and both to illustrate the structure. Cheers-- Cronholm 144 15:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
...by the Wikipedian Knightly Order.
Wise sage Alexandrov the Great, you have long been a source of inspiration and good council to the members of the Wikipedian Knightly Order. Recognition of your contributions and status is long overdue. Your all-seeing, all-knowing eyes equip you with a great wisdom, and the Knightly Order welcomes you warmly into its ranks for your support of our mission. Geometry guy 20:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The least I could do. Long may you continue to reign over your kingdom so wisely :) Geometry guy 21:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Oleg, I received your request and, as requested, in the future I will write an edit summary. Thanks for explaining. I didn't do it before because I did not happen to notice the importance of edit summaries (I always prefer to see the "diff"). Paolo.dL 08:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems I always turn to you for page moves! Symplectic topology clearly should be moved to Symplectic geometry, but the latter has a history of two or three changes of redirects, so I can't do it. Category:Symplectic topology should likewise be renamed to Category:Symplectic geometry, although here I don't know the procedures: I doubt further comment at WT:WPM will contradict this obvious rename, but I understand if you want to wait a bit. Geometry guy 22:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be no appetite at the round table for a CFD, so I have replaced most symplectic topology cats by symplectic geometry. I still think a cat move is slightly preferable to creating a new cat, but if you don't, then I will just do the latter. Geometry guy 20:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg. While doing some daily prep for my "math for poets" course at Ohio State, I just looked up Wikipedia's claim for the length of the Japanese coastline, at the " Geography of Japan" page. It reports a very precise figure: 29,751 kilometers. Of course you and I know this is totally bogus: the coastline of Japan isn't a curve, it doesn't have a length, and any reported figure implicitly depends on a choice of ruler length, i.e., on the scale below which you ignore any irregularities of the fractal. Just to further illustrate this point, Wikipedia and Brittanica (last time I checked) report that the coastline of Honshu is 5450 km and 10,084 km respectively. (On the other hand, there is a Wikipedia page " Coastline paradox.")
Obviously this sort of bogus statistic occurs repeatedly throughout the encyclopedia, without any understanding that it's meaningless. It seems hopeless for the mathematically inclined to root out this misunderstanding, and yet isn't it unsettling that an encyclopedia would contain this sort of thing? Ishboyfay 19:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Oleg -- sure thing. I'll try to add to the article when I get a chance -- I didn't know about the monastery before, but I was struck by its beauty when I stumbled upon the stub you created. Better do some math first -- I've been spending too much time at WP lately! :) Turgidson 11:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
Such a great backlog work your bot does, very helpful tool for projects I'm working on Andersmusician $ 23:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
I noticed that Project stats chart at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Yu-Gi-Oh! articles by quality statistics show on the importance row "None" instead "Low", hope you fix this -- Andersmusician $ 00:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I wonder what would you think about making your bot to create an Project's article stats table but for non-article pages (example at category:Non-article Peru pages, discussion at Template_talk:Image-Class), thanks -- Andersmusician VOTE 00:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.
I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you please make WP 1.0 bot not to link the dates and year as section headers? Linking them makes all date/year article changes to show up in Special:Recentchangeslinked, cluttering the change list to the point where it is hard to see relevant changes. I've unlinked those manually, but I don't think that is a good idea in the long run. DLX 04:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg! I'm writing you about a bot you operate, WP 1.0 bot ( talk · contribs). It keeps adding the following pages to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index:
These have all been moved or are in the process of being moved, to replace Holland with the Netherlands. The pages containing "the Netherlands" are right below Holland in the Index. I've tried to remove the pages containing the word "Holland" in the title from the Index, but the bot keeps putting them back in. I don't know how the bot has been programmed, or whether this is temporary, but I just wanted to let you know about this. A ecis Brievenbus 21:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that is happening because the bot takes two days to run, so it takes a while to react to changes. I don't think the bot will update those pages again. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Curious about my edit summary usage, I tried to check and got a 403 Forbidden error. Ral315 » 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help in correcting my formatting. I'm learning. I have preposed a project to expand the logical connectives ( proposal). Any input would be appreciated.
Be well, Gregbard 22:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey! It seems that your bot made some edits on the previous version of the
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/R&B and Soul Music articles by quality statistics, can you fix it right now??
Regards
Eduemoni
↑talk↓
01:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey there. First excellent thing you created. Second I have absolutely no idea how to make it up myself even though you gave instructions on one of the pages relating to wikipedia assessment. I was wondering if it was possible to give me some sort of instructions or maybe you can perhaps create it for me (as in get the bot to start making it and then it begins to do regular updates)? Sorry maybe the page I am looking at isn't the right one to look at to create a statistics table. It is for the anatomy wikiproject and only recently have I created a article by quality and article by importance category for the anatomy wikiproject so any help for Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Anatomy articles by quality statistics would be greatly appreciated :). Thanks heaps. petze 06:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey. Since you seem to be the last logged user to write in Wave Equation, and you're an admin, I was curious if you could tell me if my proposal to add a video of a solution of a couple of wave equations is worthwhile for the article. Swap 08:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I am glad you like it :-) Zureks 10:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, I sincerely wish to be proved wrong, but given the recent events at Integral, we may have to brace for a nasty revert war involving a keen editor with misplaced enthusiasm. I cannot spare much time these days, not on item-by-item rebuttals anyway, but I do not like his groping-in-the-dark editing of the lead. I know, the article isn't finished yet … however, the lead is the first thing someone sees after googling integral and following the top link. Arcfrk 19:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
At Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team#Update_did_not_occur you mentioned investigating the problem. Do you know how to conduct such an investigation.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The xyzzy mnemonic is useful but the M2L2FM process simplifies the process even further.
M2L2FM becomes ML LF FM
ML = Middle coordinate (y) of first vector multiplied by the Last coordinate of the second vector(z).
LF = Last coordinate (z) of the first vector multiplied by the First coordinate of the second vector (x)
FM = First coordinate (x) of the first vector multiplied by the Middle coordinate of the second vector (y)
By simply mirroring all three sets of letters;
ML mirrored = LM
LF mirrored = FL
FM mirrored = MF
and placing them on the right hand side of the original sets;
ML LM LF FL FM MF
then placing minus signs between them creates all 3 cross product equations simultaneously;
(ML - LM) (LF - FL) (FM - MF)
which is the equivalent of
(a2b3 - a3b2) (a3b1 - a1b3) (a1b2 - a2b1)
in matrix notation or
(ByCz - BzCy) (BzCx - BxCz) (BxCy - ByCx)
in the xyzzy notation.
Perhaps the M2L2FM method is confusing to some people because it simultaneously generates all three cross product equations.
Most people, i.e. right handers, think in a linear/sequential fashion and can only extrapolate one equation at a time from the cross product using the xyzzy method while left handers like myself think in a parallel/lateral fashion and can visualize all three cross product equations simultaneously using the M2L2FM method.
Greetings! I found a curious incident of the bot not adding all newly tagged articles to the log while adding it to the articles by quality list. I was wondering if it was a common problem or if it's localized to a certain WikiProject. Specifically, I'm talking about WP:CPS and the following pages:
Some of the new Stylidium pages I've created haven't been showing up in the log, but are in the list of articles by quality (specifically Stylidium sect. Biloba and others like that).
My concern is that if this is more widespread, then WikiProjects that have more activity might miss crucial article additions/moves/etc. I also watch the WP:PLANTS assessment log, and now I wonder how many articles the log has missed. Any ideas on this problem? Cheers, -- Rkitko ( talk) 18:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey Oleg, would you mind taking a look here and giving an opinion. I really screwed up.-- Cronholm 144 05:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Gregbard 06:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey Oleg, I give up, this needs an admin's touch. See my post here also. Cheers-- Cronholm 144 12:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, Mathbot has Samuel Bruce McClaren as a redlink. I have created a redirect and article for the correct spelling: Samuel Bruce McLaren, — regards Diverman 12:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Any chance of an update to User:Mathbot/Most wanted redlinks? — David Eppstein 16:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this! I can already see some obvious stuff to fix (e.g. the first thing I'll look at: the "Paul Erd&" links) or would have been if someone else hadn't been faster (or less distracted by Harry Potter reading). —
David Eppstein
01:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Your new images look nice, but I worry leaving out the axes neglects an important point about the spatial dependence.-- Loodog 16:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I can give you my code and you can decide for yourself if you want to proceed with this (warning: it will be a few hours of work, but at the end of the day you may have learned how to write your own bot). The code is here. If you decide to work on it, you need to do the following:
It goes without saying that all those codes need to be tweaked to work for chess rather than for math. So you need to read and modify each code to do what you want. Also, you need to specify the correct path to the "modules" directories you downloaded above in the "use lib" line of each script you run.
As I told you above, it could be some work to adapt the scripts to the chess, but if you wish it done, now you can. If you have questions, let me know. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 05:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Oleg!
This is no big deal, but I noticed this edit summary. Sorry, but "The integral" is idiomatic in this context.
There's no easy way to explain when "the" is necessary, and when it can (or should) be omitted. Silly Rabbit's comment (next edit) about grammar is inaccurate – this is really a matter of English idiom, and not a matter of grammar, strictly speaking.
Just thought you might want to know ... ;^> DavidCBryant 17:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi I am trying to get the Serial Killer Task Force (a task force of the Criminal Biography WikiProject ) assessment table to automatically update. I think it is set up right, I just used the Criminal Biography WikiProject as a guide. Could you please just take a look at everything and make sure it is set up to perform properly. Thank you so much, Jmm6f488 21:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so very much!!! Jmm6f488 03:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again for all the help! I just have one final question. Is there any thing else I need to do or does the bot automatically update the assessment table every couple of days? Jmm6f488 17:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'll try and follow them in future. Eraserhead1 10:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not conspicuously using the edit summary box. I didn't exactly pay you message much heed when I got it, but the idea stuck in my brain and now I realize it's probably a good idea to write a quick message, whether I think it's important at the time or not. Just wanted to let you know I'm a convert. Rhetth 02:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi... and thanks for making the modifications. Yesterday I was in a hurry, but while explaining topological space to a friend I thought some simple examples would help so I put one in the Wikipedia. I generally am very particular about styles myself... but I figured I will just put the gist of one example and run... so that other volunteers may modify it, and also put more examples.
Thanks again, Arnab
The benefit to Wikipedia of discussing this weighed against the downside of causing distress to a fellow editor is very questionable. Please stop. It's also against policy to participate in harassment and outing attempts. ElinorD (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
It cetainly does bear on her work here in regards to WP:COI, a hammer she herself has taken to wielding against those she has editing disputes (see User:Sparkzilla) among other things. Piperdown 00:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Trying to censor all discussion about this simply makes a bad situation worse and is precisely what the attackers of Wikipedia want us to do. Paul August ☎ 18:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a note to say that I saw what happened to your attempt to have a discussion about Wikipedia's self-censorship on AN/I and I think it was a shame that your post was dismissed so readily. Catchpole 16:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Oleg, just days ago, SlimVirgin permabanned an "outed" editor, Mark Devlin aka sparkzilla, for conflict of interest. Devlin is the publisher of Metropolis, a significant English language magazine in Japan (according to wikipedia). Once he was outed (which no one was banned for, by the way), he acknowledged his own COI and agreed to only post on talk pages of the articles he had edited before. That wasn't enough for SlimVirgin, who had previously been in an editing dispute with Mark, and took full advantage of a COI gray area to banish an opponent. Today's revelations are not revelations to many of us who have witnesses such hyprocrisy and more from Ms. Virgin. And now you all know why Ms. Virgin so ferociously protects abusive editors who have made taking pot shots at Patrick M. Byrne across several wikipedia articles a 9-5 workday job on-wiki, a result of an off-wiki Journalists vs CEO skirmish. And all over a french fry. There are several more COI's in that slim closet if you look harder, and they were fully hammered against many wikipedians with the full support of a admin's on-wiki social network. That's all I have to say on this matter, but those who consider themselves "powerful" at wikipedia need to take a hard look at the wagon-circling, COI's, and the effect of what appears to be sometimes more a social networking site than a serious encyclopedia. Piperdown 23:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg - another note of support, and to let you know that I've raised similar issues again at the noticeboard - cheers, Purples 03:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, I reviewed what I could find of the removed material (for example, your notices at ANI), and I completely agree with you: this doesn't look good for wikipedia. I've also noted that the violent (over)reaction came entirely from two editors/admins. I am especially appalled by the alleged purging of the edit history. There is a good reason why we should be able to trust the edit histories, and it's distressing to learn that a determined administrator can unilaterally tamper with them! This is definitely a policy level issue worth discussing. Cheers, Arcfrk 03:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Grateful for your views on this. PrimeHunter wants to delete it as trivial. He put on a prod notice that I removed. He's a specialist on prime numbers and what is trivial to him is surely not trivial to most people; anyway, if it's so obvious, how come he didn't know it already? I concede that it may not really be by Bell, but surely that's grounds for a rename, not deletion? How do I contest a deletion vote if he moves one?-- Bedivere 21:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I had a pretty valid reason for removing "top" importance for snu but your bot retagged it. it's not neutral to tag a single university as top importance and ignore all the others. I'll be re-removing the importance unless you can give me a good reason. Thanks! Aepoutre 23:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
You are correct. I have some lax habits as far as the edit summaries. I will try to be more mindful of it. Gregbard 01:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Apollo is but one example as there are many. For example, I also said firefly but Paraffin follows suit, and there are many more. Curves International is only the largest fitness franchise in the world, larger than Bally's and Gold's gyms combined. You can read a discussion on the Curves talk page to see why I'm doing this compromise, if you will, rather than seeking another rfc. Most people when they search for Curves, are not looking for the math concept, but in fact are looking for the women's fitness center. Again, this is in keeping with Wikipedia and the many articles that do the same. There is no defacing, no edit wars (hopefully), and I think is a good compromise. I originally created Curves and pointed it to Curves International, however, when the math guru's decided they wanted it to go to Curve, the math concept, that's where the issues arose. I went along with the community in the redirect, but I am doing so here with the perfectly accepted format of otheruses4 as a good compromise as well. Hope that answers your questions, if not, just let me know and I'll be able to answer whatever I missed. Cheers! -- Maniwar ( talk) 16:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, you are right. Quasi-newton methods however are a generalization of the secant method to multidimensional problems. They are normally used to find the root of the gradient, rather than a function because that is what is useful in optimization. I corrected the text. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smarchesini ( talk • contribs).
I've undid your revert, because for such a long article, it really does not have much citations (only 3). The article really needs more inline citations (as well as reliable references). The template clearly states: Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. In good faith. Ǣ0 ƞS 18:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I added the description of the Broyden's method. Broyden's method becomes the secant method in 1D, so I think it is worth mentioning it in the secant method, but feel free to modify my entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smarchesini ( talk • contribs).
Regarding the category change you made to article The three Rs I do follow your gerneral thinking about placing it in the master category Category:Education but we are working hard to remove all but the most basic of education articles from the master category and moving them into the appropate sub-category. Do you feel that this article truely belongs in the master category? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject. Dbiel ( Talk) 19:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
As a separate issue (after reading your user page) would you be willing to look at the following discussion regarding the deletion of Image:Deewar - A Wall.jpg Specificly the rouge admin's refusal to address the issue of un-deleting the image. User talk:^demon#Image:Deewar - A Wall.jpg Thank you in advance Dbiel ( Talk) 19:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Is there an intermittent problem with the bot picking up Comments pages? Initially I thought that there may be a time lag between the comment page creation and it appearing in the log but that does not seem to be the problem as it has picked up some later comment pages.
For example the article Holderness in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Yorkshire articles by quality/1 there is no comment appended yet the comment page was created on 5 July 2007.
Keith D 09:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
hello, first sorry i didnt see your complaint until i added the external link again. but can you explain why progrms to calculate determinants are not relevant to the determinant page --unsigned anon
ok sorry, the reason i kept adding was because i didnt realise that it was you that deleted it and just thought my updates were not working. I will not try to upload the link again --unsigned anon
I'm collecting an amount of lists for isolated articles (e.g. Wikipedia:Orphan) and managing some categories in ruwiki. Articles are put to appropriate categories by a AWB bot, which (un)marks them with some templates. Now it is much uncomfortable for me to use AWB because of some reasons, like:
After all of this, I am now looking at WikiBots, and taking into account the level of my Python, I've drawn my attention to perlwikipedia.
What I just want is to get some recommendations regarding to a stub to start with. Are there any perlwikipedia bots working on the toolserver and, let say, (un)tagging articles with templates? This kind of example, I hope, can give me a pretty nice time save. Mashiah 15:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
It would be wise to move make the 'Complexity Zoo' link stand out. Should I put a link in the main article? I'm also not quite sure how to make the article easier for someone unfamiliar with computer science. It seems that a description of what AWPP implies would be more useful to those needing more than just a technical reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JWhiteheadcc ( talk • contribs).
Hi Oleg,
I assume you are the author of the proof of the " Hahn decomposition theorem" on Wikipedia. Could you please explain the step: "ε1 is finite since 0 > μ(A) > -∞". Thanks.
Ban me! Math Maniac 11:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Could you please use the edit summary more often? Thanks. :) Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 17:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
You beat me to removing the information in the recent version you reverted to, and it's good to see some people are able to spot glaring factual errors. Thank you. Uxorion 16:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you please tell me how I might add myself to the British documentary filmmakers section?
I am an award winning documentary producer/director, with credits including:
Millennium: A thousand years of history (BBC/CNN) Commanding Heights: the Battle for the World Economy (PBS/BBC). Britain’s Finest Castles (Channel Five) Britain’s Finest Ancient Monuments (Channel Five) Weapons that Made Britain (Channel 4) Tales from the Green Valley (BBC)
I looked at the British and English documentary filmmaker categories, but I could not figure out how to add someone.
I realise you might not be quite the right person to ask, but if you can point me in the right direction, I will be most grateful.
Kindest regards,
Peter Sommer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.148.158.190 ( talk) 13:56, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
selfworm
Talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
selfworm Talk) 03:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I have two requests that I was hoping could get a few moments of your time. The first is about a move I proposed. See Talk:Popcorn_function. The move seems to be totally uncontested (no one seems to be paying any attention to the article), but I can't move it on my own because the target article does not have an empty or trivial history (having a few minor edits). I'm not sure if I could technically do it, but the page-moving rules seem to say that I can't (or shouldn't) and I don't want to mess something up.
My second request is for comment, relating to small set and large set. Another editor determined that "large set" and "small set" cannot share a disambiguation, and split them up into two articles. I thought this was terribly redundant (just look at the two pages) and completely unnecessary. Maybe I'm wrong, but I want to merge them back together, so that people looking for large/small sets will find what they're looking for regardless. Could you give any input on this? Thanks for your help. -- Cheeser1 12:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey Oleg, just thought I'd let you know that I've fixed up the remaining bugs in Perlwikipedia and released version 1.0 on Google Code. Although, with my luck, some gaping hole will pop up 30 seconds after I write this. Anyway, thanks for all your help! Shadow1 (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The bot used to link to open discussions on /old like : 1 2 3 4 5 and so forth. This feature was great, can you bing it back? Navou banter 17:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg,
I would like to invite you and other Wikipedians to check out Zercle.com, which is a search engine for nonfiction books that I've just launched.
Zercle is designed to solve a problem that often plagues us on book sites such as Amazon.com: We spend a huge amount of time trying (and usually failing) to get an idea of what books are available in our particular categories of interest. For example, if you enter "Group Theory" in the search box at Amazon you'll get a hodgepodge of 1431 results, the first page of which is mostly psychology books! It's ridiculous.
What if you want a list of all undergraduate-level books in "Group Theory" that are currently in-print? Good luck. There's no way to get that information, unless you want to spend a few days going through 1431 results. In effect, we're still very much in the Stone Age when it comes to answering such questions.
With Zercle, however, volunteer editors will create, edit and maintain book groups which contain all of the books that are currently in-print in a given category. Zercle has developed a special method for analyzing the core subject of a book to determine which group or groups are appropriate for the book. This is all detailed in the "Instructions for book group editors" page.
Zercle is like Wikipedia in that it is edited by volunteers and thus starts off with very little content being there for users. Unlike Wikipedia, however, Zercle requires editors to register and that they be "knowledgeable enough" in the subject areas that they edit.
I've already started building a few groups on Zercle myself, in the "quantum mechanics" area, since I'm knowledgeable enough there (BS Physics). If you enter "quantum mechanics" into the Title box on the Zercle front page you'll see those groups. If you also enter, say, "Griffiths" into the Author box, you'll see the specific group which contains the QM book written by that author. I've only just started these groups, so none of them are yet complete. But, as I've already alluded, the idea is to eventually have groups that are complete, so that users can easily discover what books are available in their categories of interest, and authors can pretty much be guaranteed that users have an easy way of discovering their book.
Once Zercle gets going we will no longer have to waste countless hours on Amazon only to get a tiny glimpse of what books are available in our particular categories of interest. We'll simply enter the title (or title words and maybe an author's last name) from any book in the category into the Zercle query box, and instantly have at our fingertips a *complete* list of the other books in that category, with links to their corresponding Amazon pages.
So please check out http://www.zercle.com/. Editors are needed in all non-fiction subjects (Zercle does not support *fiction* books). For questions/comments: paul at zercle dot com.
Thanks very much for reading this.
Paul White (developer of Zercle)
Emwave 20:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
hi i am Ramesh from India. Your pictures & diagrams are so nice & very helpful to me. i serched for your mail id. but i couldn't get it. At present i am studying Mtech. my mail id is (snipped) I will feel happy if I get reply Thanking you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.246.230 ( talk) 09:58, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I have been setting up over the last couple of months a WikiProject Zimbabwe. We have recently started assessing our articles and like other WikiProjects have a articles by quality statistics. However, we do not have the table filled in sufficiently and the few cells that are filled in I have done manually but this is a slow, painstaking process. I see however on the England page WP 1.0 bot has scanned the articles and filled in the data automatically. Could you, as and when you have the time, please run the bot on our page to try and save us time as I'm not all too sure how to do it. Many thanks in advance, Mangwanani 12:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, for some reason WP 1.0 bot hasn't updated Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Puerto Rico articles by quality statistics in almost a week, I took care of the entire 900 page backlog and we need to know the current status because we are planing a project, when do you think will be possible for WP 1.0 bot to do the new assessment? - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Any idea why Coherence (philosophical gambling strategy) is listed among "new articles"? I know that happens when a page gets moved, but this page has sat there at that same title for several years. Michael Hardy 17:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Oleg,
I recently started a new article about the mathematician John Hilton Grace (it's a skeleton right now, but it might become more informative later on) and noticed that Mathbot noticed and automatically added his name to List of mathematicians (G) - very cool by the way.
The question now is how to clue Mathbot to his nationality and birth/death years. Currently the line looks like:
even though I added this information in a semi-standard way to the article.
I am considering starting articles for a few other mathematicians, so this information would be helpful. « D Trebbien ( talk) 19:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Fortunate number has me wondering: when do you capitalize name adjectives? CompositeFan 20:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Greetings Oleg, Thanks for your work. I have placed "Fuzzy logic" under philosophy and not in mathematics at the WikiProject Logic. I think this is consistent with the wishes expressed at WP:MATH. Please look over the category division under scope at WP:Logic.
I have recently proposed that the project serve as an intersection of otherwise separate departments philosophy and math. My idea is that the Math project would designate WP:Logic as the task force responsible for the "foundations" field including set theory. WP:PHILO would designate it as the logic task force under its project. There will be two worklists derived from two banners: the math banner under foundations field, and philosophy under the logic field. I think this is best for everyone. I have used transculsions in several areas so as to make separate, and common areas for the math and philosophy aspects of it.
I guess all I can do is ask that the WP:Math group consider taking responsibility for certain categories, and coordinating with the philosophy poeple so as to keep the overlap small. I had been proposing for User:SatyrBot to do automatic tagging of categories for the logic banner. Now I am proposing that the philosophy department use fields with its banner including a logic field. The philosophy project appears ready to move forward on bot tagging. We are starting with metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, and aesthetics fields to see how it goes.
You run the bot activities at WP:Math, so I wanted to kind of give you an update on activities in that area. The discussion about covering topics under WP:PHILO has left out the math categories. So if they are to be acceptable as a part of a joint logic project, I think many would be acceptable under the separated proposal under math. I invite your corespondence. Be well,
Be well, Gregbard 03:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
If you don't agree with something, please discuss, rather than keeping reverting. Doing more of reverting will just get you blocked again. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 05:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about wrong tag. I thought that part of the point of the tags was to help users recognize the level of authority, objectivty, and care in the article. High placement, to give fair warning, supports that. Otherwise its a bait-and-switch: Start reading, thinking it's authoritative, only to be disappointed at the bottom. DCDuring 03:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Our feed at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ships articles by quality statistics hasn't been updating lately. I've run it manually at the web form a couple times recently; when I went to manually run it today, it failed out repeatedly, with errors like this on each query:
Warning: Could not fetch http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php?what=category&cptitle=Wikipedia+1.0+assessments&format=txt&cplimit=500 properly in attempt 1 !!!
Hope you can help straighten this out. Thanks very much! Maralia 02:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, how can I link to your mathbot tool without getting the results for the corresponding user on en.wikipedia? My username is Adriaan_1 on af.wikipedia, and when I manually enter it into your website, it displays my edit count just fine. But when I link to it through a template, it displays the edit count of Adriaan_1 at en.wikipedia: mhttp://www.math.ucla.edu/~aoleg/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?user=Adriaan_1. What should I do to make it display the edit count for accounts at af.wikipedia? — Adriaan ( T★ C) 16:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I don't know how drunk you get mi amigo, but if you are stumbling in multiple dimensions, [9] I'll have what you are having.
But seriously, back in the day, this was a standard beginners program in LOGO, and it's remarkable, and very counter-intuitive, that you end up at the same point via a simulated drunkard's walk.
I generally throw a {{fact}} tag on anything I write that I don't have a source handy for, and I understand you might want to clarify the point, but the article as it stood completely neglected to explain the basic relevance mathematically/computationally behind the whole idea. So I've restored the edit. You yourself, frankly, with your knowledge of higher dimensions, might be better able than I to find a good source to support this, I strongly suspect. -- 146.115.58.152 05:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
hi oleg- thank you for your helpful suggestions. can you tell us how long to wait to post an edit to an article after posting to discussion? do we wait for your approval (as watch) or how does it work? kind regards, Kvihill 21:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)