I didn't know whom to write to, but tell me, has Wikipedia site been behaving badly for you the past week? Over here, the site sometimes take very long to load. But often it works just to click the link again, and then it works ok. In other words: I find some article, click on it, nothing happens for many seconds (and it then loads after about 20 seconds). But if I click on it again, it loads fine. Does this happen at your place? Weierstraß ( talk) 17:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC).
Thanks for toning down your remark before I finished the message I was writing to you about it. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 17:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, You addressed an edit I made to correlation -- namely you deleted it.
the change was as follows: - ==A note about "random" variables== - Several places in this article refer to "random" variables. By definition a random variable has no correlation with anything else (if it does have a correlation the variable is either 1) not random, or 2) the correlation is a coincidence likely due to a small sample size). It is more accurate to think of these not as random variables, but simply as variables that have an undetermined relationship.
Can you address the underlying misnomer, in laymans terms, on the "random variables" entry? The misnomer is vaguely reference there, but I think a lot of people (myself included) are not satisfied with the explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phli ( talk • contribs)
Please see Talk:Dirichlet_problem D'n 03:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Signed measure, and answer there. The last thing I want is to start an edit war with you - or any other user, for that matter. -- Fibonacci 03:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Replied on its talk. :) Gosh Fibonacci, you are quick to assume the worst. :) Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Wow. Oleg, I can honestly say you are one of my true friends around here. I do want to say that I am not sure if I've ever quite had to exercise my social skills as much as I'm having to do now. Good practice, that: as we usually all are heads-down, thinking equations in solitude. But really, it seems as if everyone is upset or upsettable, fragile, argumentative or misbehaving and bad. Ohh-wee. Having to navigate these social waters is about as challenging (and rewarding!) as having to solve a good equation. linas 06:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
This edit of yours looks suspect. I would have guessed it is either
or
Could you please check? Tell me if you want me to have a proper think about it. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 11:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
You're right. I hadn't seen that there are many remainder terms. I was in a rush, so I had no time to read the whole article carefully, and since you had obviously studied it — you wouldn't edit it without, would you ;) — I thought it best to flag the edit as suspicious and let you handle it. I guess I owe you now. Cheers, Jitse Niesen ( talk) 18:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Я не говорю, что нужно создавать такую категорию. Гаусс был немцем по национальности но жил сначала в Свящ. Римской империи. а потом Ганноверском королевстве.
Я всё же не понимаю, почему ты не хочешь сказать боту, чтобы он не менял страну, ведь, если человек был французом (например), то британцем он никак не станет.
Я считаю также, что следует писать страны в том порядке, в котором математики в них жили. Например, для Арнольда следует писать Soviet Union/Russia (или Soviet Union/Russia/France) вместо Russia/Soviet Union.-- Ahonc 13:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, it's my fault, as I write very fast, and I write several articles at the same time. Therefore I often forget to add the edit summary and the minor edit mark. Sorry. I promise to do better in the fure. Thanks. Attilios.
hi, I read your message in my talk page. Can you explane me what is the problem in a little italian if you can. I'm here on italian wikipedia -- 62.94.208.44 20:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know anything about vector valued measures. But it sounds fun... when I'm done with this semester's duties, I'll start investigating and write the article. -- Fibonacci 22:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Oleg. Thanks for your welcome, and for telling me about the edit summary. I think Wikipedia is a grand idea and fantastically usefull. I would like to cite Wikipedia articles in publications along with my journal sources. Is there yet a standard way to do this? or are the journals still getting their heads around Wikipedia? BTW I like your first name: My partner Mindal and I have been discussing names for our first child - do you know what "Oleg" means? Is it perhaps related to Olaf, Oleif, Leif (the last a viking / english / norse name meaning "beloved")? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RodVance ( talk • contribs)
... for Data transformation service -> Data Transformation Services please? This article's title is simply wrong and has always been wrong. Microsoft's product is called "Data Transformation Services" and that's what the article is about. See http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dtssql/dts_basic_5zg3.asp . Thanks. Stevage 13:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello. I've just created an article about positive and negative sets. It's short and messy, but (I hope) useful. Please read it and comment.
On a totally unrelated business, I seem to remember you wanted to know the meaning of your name. I've looked it up - It's Russian, and means "holy". -- Fibonacci 04:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Fibonacci. I did look at the article. Well, I think that article is a bit reduntant. The only place positive sets show up is in the Hahn decomposition theorem for a signed measure. And there the concept of positive set is already defined, and does not take more than two lines. The properties of those sets are expored as the proof of that theorem goes along. So I don't see why you need a separate article for that concept. Am I missing something? Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 16:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Fine. I was unsure about whether it should have a capital "T" or not and a search on Google returned multiple results with capital "T"s instead of small ones. My mistake! -- The Neokid 18:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Manual of Style says that you should not upcase things except for proper names. So clearly, it is correct to uppercase the name Stokes or Newton. The question has to do with things like Stokes Theorem and Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. In my experience, these phrases are in fact proper names, and in general, it is not only accptable, but it is required to uppercase the first letter of each word, with the exception of minor words such as "a", "of", or "the". So I believe that it is correct to write "Stokes Theorem" and incorrect to write "Stokes theorem". Likewise, it is correct to write "Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation" and incorrect to write "Newton's law of universal gravitation." If you do not believe me, then please consult any general reference on physics or mathematics, and you will see that the uppercasing is correct. Perhaps Wikipedia needs to ammend its Manual of Style to make an unambiguous policy in this regard. -- Metacomet 19:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
BTW, this rule applies even when a person's name is not involved. For example, it is correct to write the "Fundamental Law of Calculus" and incorrect to write the "fundamental law of calculus." -- Metacomet 19:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I have no problem if that is the policy. But I do think that maybe the policy should be reviewed. -- Metacomet 19:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
You are correct that it needs the possessive apostrophe. But, for the record, I did not set it up that way. I skipped the use of the apostrophe in my comments above because I was being lazy, not because I thought it was correct. -- Metacomet 19:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Oleg. I noticed that you removed my addition to the article boundary (topology) about the boundary of a boundary, with the allegation that it was false. But it's easy to see that ∂∂S ⊆ ∂S: ∂S is always closed, and every closed set contains its own boundary. I do see that Mousomer subsequently reworked my addition to state that the boundary of a boundary is equal to the boundary (rather than contained in). I guess that statement is obviously wrong (consider the rationals), but I think it would have been better if you had reverted his edit, instead of removing a once useful statement. Anyway, the whole point of the addition is the following. One often hears that "the boundary of a boundary is empty". This statement is only true for boundaries of manifolds (or more generally, simplicial complexes), and not for general topological boundaries, and I do believe that this deserves mention in the article.
One notes that the reason that the manifold boundary is different from the topological boundary on this matter is that in the manifold case, one always endows the boundary with its subspace topology. In the topology of the original manifold, it is still true, for example, that the boundary of the boundary of the disk is nonempty. I wonder whether it would also be true more generally. - lethe talk 19:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit. It's rather pathetic that I never noticed that. Leithp (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Oleg. Since you were also concerned about my deletion of R.Koot's user and talk pages, I went ahead and asked for review at WP:AN. It's always sad to lose a valuable editor, in any case. :( — HorsePunchKid→ 龜 2005-12-11 06:40:13 Z
Hello. You seem to be good at writing software to help automate projects in Wikipedia editing. Could you take a look at my recent comment at talk:cut-the-knot? I think the number of such links may be so large that getting the software to help may be worthwhile. Michael Hardy 00:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Oleg. I had a idea regarding your bot. How hard would it be to set up a page listing all of the redlinks in the mathematics articles space? Say at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Red links. This purpose of the page would be slightly different than the requested articles page. It would be to keep track of how many broken links we have, to see what redirects need to be made, and also to give ideas for needed articles. It could be updated once a week/month depending on how difficult it is to scan all the articles. What are your thoughts? -- Fropuff 20:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! I would think that 95% or more of the redlinks on math pages would be mathematical in nature, but I guess we won't know until we have a list of such links. -- Fropuff 23:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Damn, that was fast. Thanks! I guess I should have known there would be a ton of them. I guess the most logical thing to do would be to break them up into pages (0-9), A, B, ... just like the list of mathematical topics pages. -- Fropuff 07:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I've repaired my mistake.-- Bonaparte talk 22:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
That conversation was getting a little long... sorry about that. The reason I kept asking was that I wasn't sure if my question was being conveyed, and I thought there might be some reason that the article was done the way it was. I'm new here and learning, so be patient :) And thanks for the tip on edit summaries. -- Monguin61 23:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, you said it already. I'm sorry. I'm not used to it. I'm going to. -- VKokielov 06:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
(move to talk:Stein manifold). Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 16:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Interested in your thoughts, as you have contributed a lot to Maths articles in general. It seems Andrei Polyanin added references to his own books to many pages in the wikipedia maths articles (see his contributions). In fact his only contribution has been to add these references. On some articles he is the only reference. This seems wrong. Should we remove them all? RandomProcess 17:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Salut Oleg,
I've just created Wikipedia:Moldovan Wikipedians' notice board. I invite you to join.
Cu respect, Node 00:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Tell me, what's "original research" in mathematics? Everything, or else nothing. I can't seem to understand how you can distinguish original research here. -- VKokielov 02:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding User:204.10.222.251, I have unblocked the user. This is the first edit in weeks and is of the most basic "user test" kind: adding "Media:example.ogg" to an article. Nothing deleted. No profanity or attacks. This is a user test and cannot be immediately assumed to be the same user. Please don't bite the newbies. - Tεx τ urε 18:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I normally would not have reversed a 24 hour block for that very reason. I only did so because the "vandalism" was of such a "user test" nature, the only edit in weeks, and another admin extended the block to 6 weeks and cites your block as the only reason. Please see User talk:Hall_Monitor#User:204.10.222.251 for more information. - Tεx τ urε 18:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips, I will try to do better in the future. But I have to ask - every time you see someone fail to put in an edit summary or capitalize in a correct way but inconsistently with the style guide, do you write them a message? You must spend a lot of time writing these requests, as I see several people here have commented on this. User:Debivort
Hi Oleg! I've added a new section about some history of division by zero. I hope that clarifies the relevance of Brahmagupta in the article. Thanks! deeptrivia ( talk) 18:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I ran into the Wikipedia:Missing science topics project and looks cool. I have a question though. Do you happen to know why some articles have incomplete names, like Neumann Differential E....? If you happen to know, could you please explain at Wikipedia talk:Missing science topics. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 02:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Somehow HTML markup on Mac looks extra small and TeX markup looks extra large. I am new to Wikipedia and I do not know when to use what. This is why I preferred to use TeX markup throughout on Egorov's theorem. I'd appreciate some suggestions on the appropriate way to mix HTML and TeX Badri Narayan
span.texhtml { font-family: serif; }
I will try not to insert too many newlines, but I don't entirely understand all your remarks; doubtless with time I will understand these things better. Is there a way to get LaTeX notation to be smaller? I have often put remarks in, under "discussion", describing my contributions; now that the edit summary has been brought to my attention I will use it. Thanks...
Randall Holmes 15:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
later. :) Just again, you should hit the "Enter" key on your keyboard only when you want to start a new paragraph. You can see from the text I typed in here that hitting that "Enter" key amounts to broken lines and does not look good. Trust your web browser to move you to the next line. :)
Hi Oleg, I have a notation question that should be right up your alley! P=)
Should Latq = Lat{APg:TvLq} and Longq = Long{APg:TvLq} or just Lat{TvLq} and Long{TvLq} (or would either way be acceptable)? On the surface, it would seem that Lat{TvLq} and Long{TvLq} are the proper choices, since APg is a constant between two "Lat"s and "Long"s. However, both APg and TvL can be "elliptized", using both for each(?). Let's say APe = APe{APg:TvL} and TpL = TpL{APe:TvL} (I don't think the actual equations are pertinent, so I won't complicate the discussion! P=): In this case, either APg or TvL could be the variable, and the other the constant (or both could be variables, in the case of double or iterative elliptic integrals), so it would seem that both arguments are required. But the same could be said for Lat and Long, too.
The immediate purpose here, is to define Long:
So, does Long' = Long'{APg:TvL} = sin{APg}×sec{Lat{APg:TvL}}2, thus or does Long' = Long'{TvL} = sin{APg}×sec{Lat{TvL}}2, ? If the two argument model is used, do you need to use partial differentiation notation, or is this adequate? Also, (even just) cos{Lat{TvL}} wouldn't be considered a composite function, would it? ~Kaimbridge~ 20:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, I think one argument for the function is fine, since you keep the second one fixed. But again, your notation is not good. And about notation, compare APe = APe{APg:TvL} with A=A(g, l). The first one is very hard to understand, the second notation is very clear. (Hint, hint :) Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Oleg,
the new editor User:MathStatWoman did a cut-and-paste move from shatter to shattering, so shattering needs to be deleted to have a place to move shatter to. I put a speedy tag on it even though technically I don't think there's really a category for this; it's just a common-sense thing. If you want to be formal about it, maybe you could ask MathStatWoman to request its deletion and then delete it by author request. -- Trovatore 20:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for welcoming me and for your help! I shall work more on shattering -- I promise to make it a good article, with the help of you & other experts, to edit some articles for accuracy, to write some bios, and then begin an article on empirical processes, soon -- but it is the weekend, have to do shopping and other real-life stuff; then it is hoiday season for everyone I know -- Christmas, hanukah, kwaanzaa. Aaah! So shattering will be improved, and other articles introduced, but maybe not until after New Years. I need help on writing math; is it HTML only? LaTeX? -- Best wishes! MathStatWoman 17:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your support! -- Bonaparte talk 20:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Mark. I have a question about this edit you made. In addition to the name of that raion, "Raionul Cimişlia", you added its name in the Moldovan language, you wrote "( Moldovan: R-ul. Cimişlia)". I belive it does not make any sense, as "R-ul. Cimişlia" is just an abbreviation of "Raionul Cimişlia", and not its name in some other language. If you are trying to make a point that Moldovan language is different than Romanian language, that kind of edits, if anything, work against you.
I don't plan to argue with you or with anybody else the issue of Moldovan language, but I belive your edit was not productive. I will keep your talk page on my watchlist for a while, so you can reply here if you would like to comment. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 21:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
In Topic lists, the math categories are listed redundantly both with each individual letter and with the aggregates (e.g. A-C, D-F, etc.). Based on the style and organization other "sets" of categories (e.g. physics), only the aggregates are appropriate. I am blowing through 2-3 these at several cats per minute. Of the 26 letters, I will comment a few. Yes,I am light on comments. In some cases, I will annotate the parent if it seems appropriate. Give me ten more minutes. -- Fplay 00:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Btw, Oleg, what's the reasoning behind not using LaTeX ? I mean it's much easier for me to read $m \in M$ than $m \text{in} M$, plus I'm not sure how good of a notation is "A set A is called", sort of confuses the reader with two A's in a row. I know though that you wanted to be consistent there with the notation, but still the usual letter for metric spaces is $M$ :) PiKappaMu 02:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the one year anniversary of your arrival to wikipedia just passed. Happy anniversary, and glad to have you here! - lethe talk 21:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems to be reflexive; I insert line breaks without even noticing. I often (but apparently not always) catch them when I preview... Randall Holmes 01:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. I'll remember it when i make more contributions.
About the article of the Simson line, there was a mistake in that sentence, i make the correction, i think it should be clear what it says now.
Excuse me for my English.
Thanks, again.
Crisófilax 04:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
(first two posts were originally at the Village Pump)
I've seen the requests for bots on the community portal and would like to help. I'm pretty handy with Perl, which I understand isn't the ideal language for bots, but it's what I know. Are there any guides or tips out there for would-be bot coders? Or perhaps examples of bots written in Perl that I could crib from? Thanks. | Klaw ¡digame! 05:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. I'll have a look at the Mediawiki module. You mentioned six dependencies - what are they? Are they other modules that I might already have? | Klaw ¡digame! 16:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Keithlaw. Here are some tips, but they will apply to Linux but not to Windows. In the latter case you would need to do something similar I guess.
Part 1. You need to go to CPAN, search for the module WWW::Mediawiki::Client, download it, and install it. See how to install modules at http://www.cpan.org/modules/INSTALL.html
Note that if you are not root, you will need to create a directory fist where you will want to install those modules, say
/home/me/myperl
Then, when you run the perl Makefile.PL step for each module, you need to be more specific, running it as
perl Makefile.PL lib=/home/me/myperl -I/home/me/myperl PREFIX=/home/me/myperl
Part 2. Unfortunately, as soon as you run this command for the WWW::Mediawiki::Client module, perl will complain about missing modules. Here is the message I get
Warning: prerequisite Exception::Class 0 not found. Warning: prerequisite HTTP::Message 1.56 not found. We have 1.42. Warning: prerequisite HTTP::Request::Common 1.26 not found. We have 1.22. Warning: prerequisite Test::Differences 0 not found. Warning: prerequisite URI 1.31 not found. We have 1.30. Warning: prerequisite VCS::Lite 0 not found. Warning: prerequisite XML::LibXML 0 not found. Writing Makefile for WWW::Mediawiki::Client
Then you interrupt whatever you are doing, patiently go to CPAN again, download the offending module, and install it in exactly the same way. Some of those modules may need other modules. So, overall you may end up installing as many as 10 of them (I remembered six, but I was using an older version of this module). That is the real pain in the ass and the reason people prefer the Python framework (but again, Python sucks at actual text processing).
Part 3. Once you are done installing all those modules, you need to read carefully again the instructions at http://www.cpan.org/modules/INSTALL.html in particular the line about inserting
use lib "/home/me/myperl/lib/site_perl"; or sometimes just use "/home/me/myperl" in each of your perl bots.
Also read the documentation of the WWW::Mediawiki::Client module, at the place where you download it.
The lines
$mvs->do_update($filename);
$mvs->do_commit($filename, $message);
are the most important, the first one downloads a wiki file, and the second one uploads it back to wikipedia.
Be prepared to spend several good hours on all that. Good luck. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 17:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I dit not notice the edit summary at the bottom, I will try to make a little summary of the changes whenever I make one. I wanted to correct some things I have put in the finite differences article but it seems you have already fixed it (and vastly expanded it), thanks also for that.
Oleg, the correlation function article is overly mathematized =) Where can I add the part about "Correlation function in statistical physics" so that it doesn't disturb the current structure too much ? :) -- PiKappaMu 17:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear Oleg,
The system informs me that the New Foundations article is reaching the limits of size for articles. I was thinking of writing about mathematical constructions in New Foundations; should I perhaps start writing another article (something like "Implementing mathematics in New Foundations"?) Or am I OK continuing to expand the current article? Randall Holmes 20:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello, Oleg
I have just started my involvement with Wikipedia (about 2 weeks ago or less) and any advice is highly appreciated. I was unaware of the role of "Edit summary". Now I am.
I have added some links (e.g. "vector", "William Gilbert," "sundial" and "lightning"), also an article on the polar aurora (there is a story here). I do not always use bold face in links, nor do I always put my contribution at the head of the list. It depends: I look at other links and then decide. The basic rule is "what helps the user best?" Sometimes, a lot of good and general material is available, and all I can do is supplement it.
However, it usually helps the user to have an overview, a description which can serve as a useful introduction. If I cannot find any link listed that fulfils the role better, I put my link on top and bold-face it. I also describe in a few words what it provides.
If you are willing, I would like you to check me out on this. I am a retired physicst and have spent years creating collections of sites which I think users appreciate. I won't put them on Wikipedia--where others can change them beyond my control--but I can link to them. Tell me if my links meet the above criteria!
One of my collections is about the Earth's magnetosphere, and I am currently writing a Wikipedia entry for it (the one which was there is pretty shallow--and I already convinced someone to remove a Velikovsky claim he inserted there). To see more of my stuff, go to
http://www.phy6.org/prospect.htm
Please tell me more about yourself! I am looking for volunteer Russian translators (there exists a translation of the above page, but no more:
http://www.phy6.org/Vadim.htm )
(I tried to send this before but it looked horrible, then I tried to come back and correct it, and could not, the machine said the talk file was too big. I also put this reply on my own file. Please tell me if you get it.)
David P. Stern
Greenbelt, Maryland, USA
http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Sstern.htm
Sorry about the Math portal thing. The individual pieces/templates/whatever did not seem to merit the same care as full articles do. Anyway, I got me review and resolve the diffrence and Portal:Mathematics now uses the same template as the other Top 8. That is what I really wanted. It was not until I reformatted the template invocations, one param per line, could I really make sense of it. Now that it is a little more clear, I am inclined to leave it as it. If you think that we would benefit from even greater uniformity, feel free to do the moves. My point is: now that there is one-param-per-line, it is fairly easy to see the diffs in the history if you go ahead regularize the eight corresponding file paths (or page or aritle names, or whatever you want to call them).
Also, I am not saying that all must use the Portal template. I do think that those who can make the concssions of style and vareity will allow for slightly easier collaboration. -- Fplay 22:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi there
I've just recently noticed that you reverted Jordan block back to the Jordan normal form. May I ask what was your motivation behind the redirect and why was it done so without being subjected to public scrutiny?
Thanks in advance -- Mecanismo | Talk 01:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I added some examples at Simple group. I would like to ask you to comment at Talk:Simple group and see if more needs to be done. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 16:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello Oleg,
You have recently reverted an edit I made in the article "Square Root", concerning the value of . I wanted to discuss this matter a little. I apologize for making a deal out of such a trivial matter, but this is important to me in resolving a dispute I have had recently.
While it is clear that the final conclusion of my comment () has appeared already, it still serves as a demonstration as to why this is true. Furthermore, and more importantly, it emphasizes the important fact that is not .
While this may sound trivial, it is surprising that many people, some of which considering themselves proffesionals, do not realize it. Even trying to explain this simple fact leads to a barrier of misunderstanding and prejudice.
This is why I believe this point should be stated in the most explicit way possible, having led me to make the edit.
I will be grateful if you let me know what you think, and if possible, help me edit the article in a way that clarifies this issue while not appearing redundant.
Thanks,
-- Meni Rosenfeld 17:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for everything. -- Meni Rosenfeld 19:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Oleg, I went have took out the PortalPage template from the Math portal. Customize to your heart's content and please leave the template alone. It is designed for less-demanding editors who just want to fit in. BTW: Philosophy has taken advantage of customization to good effect. Take a look. -- Fplay 19:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, I've just created my first article, viz. differential entropy, and would very much like it if you gave it a quick read-over and checked it for any errors I may have comitted. I come to you as I do not really know any other math editors, and value the input of an experienced editor such as yourself. Thanks, and I hope it's not too much of a bother. toad ( t) 23:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Just trying to keep out of your way, is all. To give everybody what they want. Go for it! 01:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Oleg for your comments on Wronskian - and your suggestion that I sign up - I was 58.160.212.113 but now I'm free! Also dig your stuff on optimization - keep up the good work. Cheers, Ben Spinozoan 02:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, I will start to add summaries. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Robertetaylor ( talk • contribs)
Has anyone in America actually seen the Modulus Fantastic Four villain yet, or is it just us Brits? —the preceding unsigned comment is by Robertetaylor ( talk • contribs)
In User:Mathbot, the sentence "there is is no need for example to spellcheck the math formulas" appears, where the word "is" is obviously duplicated, and one instance should be removed.
Generally, would it be okay for me to edit such errors in personal pages when I encounter them?
-- Meni Rosenfeld 13:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the editing help and cleaning up my use of the markup language...it doesn't seem to be quite TEX or LATEX to me, but I might be missing something. My article on shattering... I have been working on adding to it and improving it, but the output doesn't look pretty.
Also, a Wikepedia contributer suggested that I join the Mathematics Project. Sorry to admit my ignorance, but how do I do that? I went to the link, but could not determine how I add my user name to the list.
Sorry for typing at the top of a page instead of the bottom.
But I noticed that some pages instruct one to "put new messages at the top". And also that the Wikpedia rules are not really rules but suggestions. So I need time to learn...
Thanks for the help to me while I am a newcomer...and I am still a newcomer; there is so much I do not know about the Wikipedia world. MathStatWoman 18:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry! I was just trying to help!
It would definitely be nice if Wikipedia could find a mathmetican with extensive skills in numerical methods to post a few algorithms. Specifically Mullers method, and the Secant method.
Thanks for keeping Wikipedia relevant and up-2-date! I appreciate the service! --anon
Just wanted to let you know that I asked your question from User talk:Arabani#Question about redirects on the Village Pump (Policy) page. There does not seem to be a consensus on the issue, there are arguments for both points of view, but it basically comes down to "Use common sense, and do what seems best at the time".
Oh yes, go Bears, err... Bruins. ;) -- Falcorian 18:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Oleg -
thanks for your mail! Nice to see, that some work was noticed by someone...
Well, I won't argue for the layout of articles, I think wikipedia is a great deal and good enough as it is. But... a little bit it stitches me with the relocation of the pascal-matrix... You see, it has the character of a introducing-card (would you say so in english?), more than an "important" property. In a list of important properties I think it is not needed for an encyclopedia. It has more the character of a gimmick, pleasant, amazing, and with a styleful shortness and understatement I think the best place would be in fact at the introduction, saying "hello,look here"... and then proceed to the more general and important things.
Positioned at this place I'd rather feel to retract it, but, well, I'll try to get used to it next days ;-)
And generally: it is nice to get welcomed in the way of your mail. Thanks again!
Gotti -- Gotti 18:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Well -
thanks for your input! After considering a bit, I still think, that a property like that, put up into a simple,single point, would be appropriate at the introduction. But - according to the wikipedia rules about original work I come tending to the opinion, it would be better to retract and to try to get it into the printed version first and make it common this way.
Hmm.
Styling an encyclopedia is not so easy, I learn by this ...
Gotti -- Gotti 20:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Ahh - Meni and Oleg, also I had to say thanks for your hints; I'll try to follow them.
And I just put some things together to introduce myself a bit
Druseltal2005 - Gottfried Helms
-- Gotti 22:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Oleg --
If I wanted to temporarily freeze a page so that I can do some tedious notation replacements without worrying about other people making changes in the meantime, how do I arrange to get the freeze put in place? And how long does a temporary freeze usually last? FYI, the page is Discrete Fourier transform, and there is a general consensus behind some simple notation substitutions. Please let me know. Thanks.
Thank you for taking the time to write to me. I appreciate your suggestion and will follow it. As you might have noticed, I am just beginning to learn the etiquette necessary for being a proper "comensal" in this place. Can I ask you for a favor? Do you know how to add hit counters to articles? We want to add one to the Leibniz page.
Best Regards
Dr. Gabriel Gojon 17:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello, Oleg
Thanks for your help in the past, but I am still learning about Wiki.
Right now I am writing an article about the magnetosphere of Earth. It will be very long and maybe I will divide it into "Magnetosphere' and "Magnetospheric physics." I am not sure.
With a long article, the question of references arises. You do not want to send all users to the beginning of the article, if the part you want to point out is deep inside. You do not want the user to start a long search.
Does Wikipedia have anchors, the way HTML does, something like <A name='substorm'> ? If so, how do you place them, and how do you use them in links inside Wikipedia, or for outside users?
Also, is it OK to indent paragraphs for better appearance, like this one?
Happy New Year
David Stern http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Sstern.htm
Hi. I am not sure I understand your at that article. What is an ideal in that context? It cannot be an ideal (ring theory), can it? Anyway, I would really appreciate it if you would revisit that article, and make links to the relevant concepts in your contribution, and maybe making it more clear. Thanks a lot, Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 02:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
i'm not sure about it :-) —the preceding unsigned comment is by Unixer ( talk • contribs)
here is the PDF file: http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~yakov/Geometry/5.pdf —the preceding unsigned comment is by Unixer ( talk • contribs)
I read that. OK, what you wrote is not right away wrong, but it is not helpful as there is no description of the assumptions involved, what kind of ideals are that, in what ring, etc. Maybe your contribution could be fixed, but would require a careful job by a person who knows all that stuff. The simplest thing to do would be just to remove your contribution, which I will do now. I would suggest that in the future when you contribute you be familiar enough with the topic at hand to know that what you are writing is in the right place and correct. That because it seems that when people complain about Wikipedia, they don't mind so much when information is missing, rather when information is incorrect. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The reader is not blind, but is trusting, perhaps, and when the "Examples" section ends, they may believe that there are no more resources with examples. Can I add my link inside the examples section since it is all example problems? - Tbsmith
Do you really think all those examples aren't relevant to path integration? How so? I don't understand how it's not relevant. http://www.exampleproblems.com/wiki/index.php/Complex_Variables#Complex_Integrals
Yes it's self promotion, but so what? The link is extremely useful to anyone in graduate school that's learning how to compute these integrals.
- Tbsmith
I appreciate the objectivity of your edit, but take a look at the history of that entry and the IPs editing it. Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with a user who does this ? -- TrinityC 21:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Oleg. Do you know offhand if there's a way for me to modify my username? I originally signed up with this one, which is an alias, but in retrospect I would rather use my real name. Thanks. -- Adfgvx 00:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I was excited when the yellow bar appeared atop my page, thinking perhaps it was a late "Merry Christmas" or an early "Happy New year" — only to discover it was a boring heading "fix". Oh well I guess I should be thankful (even tho it isn't Thanksgiving) for whatever care is shown for my talk page. And since I'm here, happy whatever holidays a heathen like you celebrates ;-) Paul August ☎ 16:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for unblocking me. Any clue why I was Indefinitely Blocked by "209.67.210.206" Agerard 17:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Rick. You have been doing good work and you did talk at talk:mathematics as I asked you.
As such, I have no right to ask you to slow down when you make huge changes to math article, it is your right as editor, and I may do the same.
So let me put it as a favor. You basically rewrote function (mathematics) and did a huge change at polynomial. OK, you can do that. However, if I were you, and knowing that a lot of other people watch those articles, and that a lot of work went into that before you, so if I were you, I would be slower and more cautioous.
The reason is the following. It will take me a lot of time now to go through all the changes you made at polynomial, and see what I like, what I don't. I had a vision for that article, I knew it very well, and now it is all changed.
OK, I don't know how to say it. Let me try that way. There is no rush. You could have changed just a paragraph or two today, waited for comments, inquired on the talk page. Again, you don't have to do that, this is not the mathematics article, but again, it is easier on others that way.
It is not the end of the world, you could write a bit today , a bit tomorrow, etc. This is the strategy I employ, and very suscessfully. So think of it as a piece of advice, no more.
You can reply here if you have comments. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 01:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I would like to echo Oleg's comments above. In particular I would like to discuss somewhere my concerns about the rewrite of function (mathematics) (my comment at talk:function (mathematics) has generated no response.) The problem as I see is that while I like a lot of what Rick has done there, I think the article is now too didactic, that it reads more like a high school text book than an encyclopedia article. As this is a question of proper encyclopedic style, I would like to work this out before Rick replicates this style elsewhere. Paul August ☎ 17:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Could you protect Acharya S? There is a guy editing it from a number of IPs, getting himself into worse and worse trouble because he has lost his cool while under a short 3RR ban. He is emailing me, but seems too obsessed to stop. Charles Matthews 19:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
My thanks. Hope you are having a good New Year's Eve. Charles Matthews 19:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi. About "Christianity is a dying fad", I have never said anything of the sort. This is one voter who it's useless to argue against so I did not wish to respond to him/her. I work on Christianity and Islam articles a lot aside from the other articles I edit and also revert vandalism and POV on those articles. So it really isn't useful for me to argue with someone who just took one look at one of my contribs and made a conclusion. Maybe this helps to understand the situation. :) Thanks Oleg. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Anonym, just a suggestion. It is not a good idea to delete text from other talk pages or even your talk page. If the talk page gets too big, you can just archive it. I believe that's the best. Thanks. You can reply here if you have comments. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 00:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
All the best for 2006. Paul August ☎ 06:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Gateman1997, your decision to start an RfA for Ed Poor without asking him first, and without posting it on the main RfA page, was not a good idea I believe. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 01:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg - your input on the scalar (physics) talk page would be welcome. I am having a discussion with another editor and the more opinions the better. PAR 16:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Mathbot for adding my edit summary use. ;) -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 04:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it should add edit summary stats after prior comments, if any. In one of the rfas, it has added the stats before a pre-existing comment by me - it makes reading the page difficult. Or you may want to create a separate sub-section? btw, does it look at edit summary usage in Template space? If not, it may be a good idea to say that it looks at edit summaries in the article namespace. Also, you may want it to generate a table (a 2X2 matrix) to show edit summary usage for major and minor edits on one axis and for Article and other namespaces on the other axes generating four boxes. Also, implicit assumption is that the user would have made 500 edits to article namespace. Pl. feel free to disregard ;) any of these suggestions. -- Gurubrahma 09:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I´m sorry, mainly i just done little and quick modif and i forgot to put summary >.<.
PS: i din´t know of which article youb are talking about, but i forgot often time.
As a courtesy for other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to
sign your
talk page and
user talk page posts. To do so simply add four
tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added along with a
timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info read
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you.
Thanks for starting the article on weak solutions. I edited it slightly to indicate that there are other definitions of weak solution besides the distributional one. Also I added Evans' book as a reference, but he doesn't talk about n-th order equations so the article needs a reference for that material (Hörmander?). Brian Tvedt 02:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg.
I made a minor change to root-finding algorithm and you reverted it. Thank you for your interest. It is of cause not very important whether a free variable is called x or p. If there is only one free variable, x is the conventional choice. If there are four free variables, p q r s seems natural. We need four variables, but not five, so p q r s is sufficient and x is unnecessary. Happy new year to you and thanks for our fine discussions. Bo Jacoby 07:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Somewhere I must change from one variable x to four variables p,q,r,s. When I claim that the two observations are the clue to the method, then I had better let the formulas of the observations look like the formulas of the method as closely as possible. The method uses no x. That's why. I'm sure you understand it right. You are the reader - if it is confusing to you, then it is confusing. Perhaps I must be more explicite:
If , then the substitution approximates
, and if , then the substitution
In both cases the new value of the variable p will approximate the root P:
Am I clear ?
Bo Jacoby 13:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by fixed point iteration, or why it must be much slower than Newton's method. For pencil-and-paper computation with 2 decimals of a real root to an equation of degree max 3, I prefer Newton's method. Even if Newton himself, of cause, didn't use neither complex numbers nor PC nor pocket calculator, his method can be programmed to use complex numbers and find one of the roots of a polynomial, but which one depend on the initial guess, which is not desirable. So for the PC I prefer the present method which finds all the roots reliably. Alas I know of no nice geometrical explanation like the well-known drawing of the intersection between a tangent to the curve, and the x-axis. The lack of pictures makes complex numbers hard to grasp for many people. Bo Jacoby 09:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello Oleg - since you listed statistics as an interest in your user talk, I was hoping you could lend your expertise to the current Mathematics Collaboration of the Week: Multiple Comparisons. Obviously it's a interesting and important topic. We are also in the midst of a discussion as to the distinction between multiple comparisons and multiple testing. Your thoughts would be much appreciated. Let's get a math article up on the front page! Thanks for any help. Debivort 10:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Sa ai un an bun. De la Bonaparte talk 17:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could do me a favor and find my edit summary usage using Mathbot. If you're too busy, just forget about it. Thanks. Gflores Talk 01:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Edit summary usage: 79% for major edits and 81% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.
I have redirected Mathbot's talk page to this page as that is how the bot's user page requests feedback/talk be given. -- Nick Catalano ( Talk) 07:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Salut Oleg, poti sa-mi spui si mie procentajul cu MathBOt? Bonaparte talk 12:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Edit summary usage: 54% for major edits and 8% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 86 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.
You may find the debate at WP:VPT#Rollback_text_changed of interest. My experience is that a significant number of admins do, on rare occasions, use rollback on non-vandalism edits. I've never seen any action be taken. It is the appropriateness of the edit rather than the button used to make it which is regarded as the important issue. David | Talk 19:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thanks, I just tossed this stuff up from memory as practice review for a stats exam. I tend to only add to Wikipedia now and then, in a pretty random fashion. I appreciate you folks who keep it cleaned up to spec, I try not to leave things too ugly. Phil 05:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
In your opposition to my candidacy for ArbCom, you wrote "I belive Kelly did a very good job as an arbitrator so far, but her behavior on the infoboxes debacle and subsequenent comments on her talk page were not appropriate for somebody wielding so much power on Wikipedia." Could you identify what behaviour or comments lead you to that conclusion? And just how much power do you think I wield on Wikipedia, and how do you think that my not being on ArbCom will decrease that (from my standpoint, if anything, it'll increase it). Kelly Martin ( talk) 20:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
When Mathbot is calculating edit summary information that is being posted on RfA's does it count automatic edit summaries from section texts as being an edit with a summary or without, assuming nothing else is added between the /*'s ? xaosflux Talk/ CVU 03:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes... but I'm also in the process of looking for employment too. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
i was taught an isomorphism is a 1:1 and onto mapping at uc berkeley. you say it's not. thanks for your insight and deletions. i'll have to do some research and get back to you. thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bryanmcdonald ( talk • contribs) .
From a category theory point of view, an isomorphism is any "invertible" morphism. That is a morphism f from A to B is an isomorphism provided that there exists a morphism g from B to A such that g o f = idA and f o g = idB. So what an isomorphism is depends on what category you are in. In the category of sets and functions (SET) the isomorphisms are the bijections (1:1 and onto). In the category of topological spaces and continuous functions (Top) they are the homeomorphisms. In any concrete category where the morphisms are functions, then every isomorphism will be bijective. The converse "that every bijective morphism is an isomorphism" is true for some other categories besides SET, for example the category of vector spaces and linear transformations, and the category of groups and group homomorphisms, but is not true, for example, in TOP. Paul August ☎ 19:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok I've now looked at isomorphism and Bryanmcdonald's edit, and it was certainly appropriate to revert that edit. However I wanted Bryan to understand that, in the context of "sets", what he said about bijections being isomophisms was correct, while in other contexts, it was not. (I figured you understood all this already). By the way, I think that that article needs to be rewritten, particularly the formal definition. Paul August ☎ 23:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I've just seen that you rv-ed my motivation sentence from the intro at Complex number. So I picked up the glove :-D and started a discussion at Talk:Complex number. If you have the time I'm sure that your opinion will be helpful AdamSmithee 08:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
... in the same line as text (now a discussion on whether Unicode characters should be specified in the HTML by use of character references or without character references)
Hi Oleg, you left a note on my talk page on December 23rd which I've only just noticed. Thanks for the info, I had been planning to do more research into the Wiki policies.
But you reverted a change I made to the
Cardinal number article. Now, the aleph symbols appear as squares just like any other unrecognized non-ASCII character. The problem is that the current representation is not actually HTML.
Here are a number of different aleph representations I have found on wikipedia:
I recommend א It's HTML and it works on the standard Windows XP + Internet Explorer computer I'm using no. I'll test these on my home Computer (Linux + Firefox) later tonight.
To write HTML, even when representing funny characters like aleph and infinity, you should use only ASCII characters (i.e. standard US/British English letters and punctuation). You should not simply copy and paste the symbol from an article into the Edit box. This means ∞ for ∞ (infinity) and א for א (aleph).
Thanks for your time. I hope the above makes sense. Aaron McDaid 11:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Entered into the edit box | Example | Notes |
---|---|---|
ℵ or ℵ or ℵ | ℵ | Unicode, it's called called "alef symbol". This particular character may or may not display for you. Aaron finds that it works in Firefox on Linux, but not IE. This is the current preferred method, using the last of the 3 input strings on the left: ℵ . Each of these 3 input strings should give the same result. |
א or א or א | א | Unicode, it's called "Hebrew letter alef". This particular character may or may not display for you. Aaron finds that it works in IE, but not Firefox on Linux. |
<math>\aleph</math> | Tex. More portable because Wikipedia will usually render it as a PNG image (depending on your Wikipedia preferences, it might display one of the above two instead). Will probably look different (larger) from the other examples in this table. It can look out of place amongst the surrounding text. |
As the guy who originally changed that article from png to unicode, let me just say that I (and I think everyone) is aware that there are problems with the solution. I agree with Oleg. Let's just hope that unicode and mathml become widespread very soon. - lethe talk 07:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Mathbot has calculated my edit summary usage in
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JzG but I recently changed my account from
User:Just zis Guy, you know? - can you run a count on the other one manually please? -
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
RfA!
12:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I note your comment at
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JzG. Ever one to learn from my mistakes I have now added the "force edit summary" script to my monobook.js and am resolved to mend my unsummarising ways :-) Thanks for the input. -
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
RfA!
12:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Salut Oleg,
It means "Tag, you're falling under the shadow of Bonaparte. But I anticipated that."
Cheers. -- Node 01:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I noticed what appears to be a error in the Newton's Method page. As you seem to be the de-facto editor there, if you have some spare time maybe take a look at the discussion page there and see what you think. 68.174.117.113 02:49, 11 January 2006
Hi Oleg. FYI: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anittas#More offensive remarks by Anittas ← Humus sapiens ←ну? 07:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course they are; I have no idea why I did that. Perhaps to create incentive for myself to get rid of them by filling them in :-) Fredrik | t c 09:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
So, first you are strong-arming me to include all articles listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity and now I discover that this tin filled with oil and grease is making a bloody mess of that page. I guess that's quite an achievement, but nevertheless, we are not amused.
Seriously, in today's update, the pages Assignment problem and Zariski topology were added and the pages Baire function and Isometries in physics were removed, all for reasons that my poor human brain cannot fathom. What's going on? -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 18:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello again. I wrote a new tool that might be even more useful to RFA than my edit counter was (and to some extent pays penance for any editcountitis I might have encouraged). It's a hierarchical view of a user's history: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/contribution_tree
I'm just announcing it now though, so I don't know how well people will receive it (or how much it overlaps with other tools), but if you think it's particularly useful for RFA, you could add it to (or replace) the link you're posting to my edit counter on the RFA's. And of course if you have any comments/suggestions, I'd like to hear any feedback. -- Interiot 20:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I know this may be spam, but I'm looking for an answer and I don't yet know how to talk to someone else. Is this a new Pokémon? http://pkmn.net/forums/index.php?topic=39800.0 Scroll down, you'll see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenaisis ( talk • contribs)
Meh, it's okay, I was proved wrong anyway :( from Jenaisis
Hi Oleg, please forgive my coming by to discuss your vote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev. I just wanted to share with you that while I agree with you that edit summaries are very important, their presence or absence may make a difference between a good and a better editor. But note, that an excellent editor and a good admin, while often found in one and the same person, are actually two rather different things. We all know what a good editor means and there is no need to elaborate.
But good admin is first of all commitment and the highest standards of personal ethics (not to use the tools you are empowered with inappropriately). Alex expressed the highest virtues in both the commitment and personal ethics, especially in view of an exemplary decency of how he handled certain individuals that committed to derail his Adminship and even dared to use sockpuppets for that. Besides, since Alex actually checks all new articles created at wiki (an amazing commitment) the admin tools will come very handy since he is willing to do a cleaning part of admin duties, unlike most of our admins who, usually, just remain regular editors.
There is no doubt that have been pointed out so clearly at this nomination about the summaries, there is no doubt that he will not be forgetting about them anyway after this discussion and votes.
By no means I intend to pressure you and should you choose to keep your vote unchanged, I will not be contacting you with further pressure regarding this issue. -- Irpen 01:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
(The Marvel character, not the maths thingy.)
Does anyone think it'll come back?
I would like to express my thanks to all the good people who spent their valuable time time and effort working on my (failed) RfA voting. I agree with your judgement and it is fair abakharev abakharev 13:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for the corrections. Heraclesprogeny 01:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. But I would think it a greater problem if it was the habit of some to revert an edit based only upon a superficial look at the comment line (via recent changes or whatever). I would think that reverts were or should be made with more literacy, no? - MagnaMopus 20:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I was reffered to you - can you help me with this project? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Should be fixed now. Now, when are you going to come once and say "thank you", instead of just mentioning bugs all the time? :) Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 22:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for creating and maintaining the mathbot! |
Having the bot going after redirects is hard. I don't know how to do that. So far it just looks in categories, no more no less. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 06:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello. The edit summaries being left by Mathbot on WP:RFA point to a non-existent section of the talk page:
-- TheParanoidOne 10:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
hi ,The Current opening defenition of Integral is very not scientific and very not Mathematical. Yet ,the need to appeal to layman term's in understandable ,that is why I kept this opening stsement Yet still ,an integral is not a volume etc' ,rather it can be used to calcualte it ,depepnding on the function's meaning. - Procrastinator talk2me 00:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey Oleg ,hope that after this alteration the text constitute a decipherable syntax for your OCR algorithms.
Please rectify if needed at Talk:Integral-- Procrastinator@ talk2me 16:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
What the eff? Why am I not allowed to blank my own user talk page? And don't give me any of that "Oh, you're banned" garbage. I would sincerely appreciate a real answer.
-sfmil
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled " Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.
When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.
– Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 23:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Contrary to popular perceptions, I was only in favour of Kelly's intention. I disagreed with her method. Perhaps the reason that I appeared strongly in support of her was that I was in strong opposition to the behaviour against her. Just to note: this isn't asking you to change your vote; I am just keen to avoid any ambiguities or misunderstandings. Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 12:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
(Sorry for recent edits, my keyboard is having a disagreement with me)
Hello Oleg,
Thanks, -- Meni Rosenfeld 14:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello Oleg, I have just created an article about formal calculation. It is in a rather bad shape right now due to lack of good sources on it (and due to this being my first significant edit), but I'd be delighted if you check it out as well as the accompanying discussion. -- Meni Rosenfeld 16:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, a while ago you made some comments about the presence of bible-verse articles, and/or source texts of the bible, and you may therefore be interested in related new discussions:
-- Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 18:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
As you might have noticed, I change my script updating Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity to ignore your bots contributions to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics and look in the categories instead. Comments are welcome. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 21:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the input and the help. Cheers, MathStatWoman 13:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, I had a look at the LMS adaptive filter site. This site needs a make over: First, there is no background information on the adaptive filter topic. Second, the update equations are not derived. Third, there are several inconsistencies in the update equations. Last, there are no external references.
I have a bit of time and if nobody else is working on that topic I could give it a try.
Greetings, Oliver Faust
I use the same style for new admins, bcrats, and welcoming users, so I would need to change those, but I don't feel strongly in the least, so I will get around to it. The templates are subst'd, however, so all the uses of them can't be changed, however. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 05:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Done...new colors are blue, white, and orange (as opposed to black, yellow, and white). See User:Ilyanep/Admin — Ilyan e p (Talk) 05:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg! I'm thinking of starting an RfArbCom against Anittas for the recent personal attacks he made, which came after the second RfC - see
here. Previously, he's also made a number of personal attacks against you, particularly anti-Russian statements. What do you think about this request for arbitration?
Ronline
✉
05:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ronline. Yesterday I had to speedy go to bed, and that's the reason I postponed the matter for today. Now, after reading your evidence, and the recent events at User talk:Anittas and WP:AN/I#Displaying another's image on one's user page, and taking into account that there were already two RfC's against Anittas, I believe an RfArb is all we have left on the table. If you start one, I would like to be a party to it.
Anittas, this is not a celebration. Sadly, you never quite learned the rules of polite engagement on Wikipedia, and not for lack of time or lack of attempt from others. I would think that a reasonable solution from the ArbCom would be to request that you be blocked for a certain period each time you commit a personal attack. But we will see if Ronline goes forward with the ArbCom request. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 02:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Oleg. We have been working on a new editcounter to be a backup for when the toolserver is down or has a huge replication lag, like it had recently. However, I've kept running into trouble while trying to parse edit summaries, specifically, when those edit summaries have automatic section-edit summaries that have been malformed by a user editing over them. An example of such malformed diff is here. My question is, how does Mathbot process edit summaries? Flcelloguy told me that you could know how to fix that problem. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 06:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
# strip the autocomment (the part between /* and */, regardless if an user modified that or not s/\<span\s+class=[\"\']autocomment[\"\']\>.*?\<\/span\>//g; # decide if the current edit is minor or not if (/\<span\s+class=[\"\']minor[\"\']\>m\<\/span\>/) { $minor=1; } else { $minor=0; } # see if the user put an edit summary or not # (if the edit summary has parentheses inside of it, the script will be confused and not count that) # I will fix that bug soon, it is not too hard if (/\<span\s+class=[\"\']comment[\"\']\>\s*\(\s*(.*?)\s*\)\s*\<\/span\>/) { $comment=$1; } else { $comment=""; }
Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 17:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry that my English is not good. In recent day, I found that some of infomation in wiki are useful for me However, some administrator stated that. Stop nonsense vandalism in wiki For me, i just pressed the search button in wiki.And search some useful infos for me I have not changed any things or delete anythings in wiki. Oleg, What can i do in wiki?? Nana21 17:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know whether the ISP use a variable IP address. It is very strange that I won't read any things about maths. But, you sent me a meassage that i have deleted a page about maths.I would like to ask about the wiki translation. I am the wiki user in Chinese wiki. I would like to translate some of articles from the chinese wiki. Can i do this? Or it require permission? Nana21 17:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
What does it mean when a user has a name but it is red-linked? There is a user with these qualities who is being something of a nuisance on Peano axioms. Randall Holmes 18:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The ISP of this individual seems to be Special:Contributions/88.104.48.8 (also see Special:Contributions/Evildictaitor); his contribution list looks like (probably well-intentioned) vandalism. Randall Holmes 22:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, I was just wondering if I could base one of my fictional characters on you? He's a maths wiz, kind of like yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenaisis ( talk • contribs)
Hi Jorge. I read some of your comments at talk:function (mathematics). I did not research well-enough the issue to give a qualified opinion about the discussion there, but I have a general remark however.
The rule of thumb is that one should not try to make things too complicated, at least in the openning paragraphs. More precisely, the introduction must be as acesssible as possible (without being silly, of course). More complicated content can go down the text. Some more information is avaiable at Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible.
Again, this is a rule of thumb. I don't quite know what position to take on function (mathematics), but I thought I would give you my general perspective on things. You can reply here if you have any comments. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 02:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rich. I have a strong suspicion that in this edit at the above-named article you made a mistake by inserting the planetmath template and putting it in the combinatorics category. I removed those for now, but please let me know if I was wrong. You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 01:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
My last post wasn't really about Pokemon and the one before that was confirmed to be an item, not a Pokemon, but next month a new Pokemon will be shown to tie in with the 9th movie, so I'll try and get a picture of it if someone could tell me how you post pictures on Wikipedia. I'm also now one of the main editors of the Pokemon articles, if that interests you :) So like you're the 'Wiki maths god' that someone stated, I'm the 'Wiki Pokemon god'.
From Jenaisis, 18th Jan 2006
I'm thinking about requesting adminship, and have written a draft of my request. I would appreciate it if you would proofread it for me, and let me know what you think. -- Go for it! 23:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, both of you. You've given me a lot to think about, and I appreciate it. Cheers, -- Go for it! 01:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
In regards to Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters' rfa, what would his edit summary percentage need to be for you to support him? He's a good guy, but he's had a bad past awhile back, and this would be a fitting ending to a long road back to redemption. Karm a fist 03:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
From sigma algebra:
"In mathematics, a σ-algebra ... over a set X is a family Σ of subsets of X that is closed under countable set operations..."
Is "family" meant here in the sense of family (mathematics), or is it just a loose way of saying "set"? Just curious, and thought you might know. Dbtfz 05:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Jenaisis 13:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Discussion continues at talk:shape
Hi Oleg,
I adjusted the definition on the shapes page.
I changed the definition, because I am interested in comparing shapes. If two shapes are exactly the same, then there is no difference between the definitions. That there is no difference between the shapes after Euclidean transformations are filtered out, is equivalent to there being no difference between all properties invariant to Euclidean transformations.
The difference between the two definitions becomes apparent when comparing two objects which do not have exactly the same shape. It may not be possible to filter out the effects of location, scale and rotation. Methods, such as Procrustes analysis, are based on heuristic algorithms to filter out these transformations. It may be more precise to write that the difference between two shapes is described by the differences between corresponding invariant properties.
I will not pursue the issue. I do not agree, however, with your description of the extra words as 'clumsy', and do not see how such a description helps anybody.
"And I will have to agree with him that the way you have put it was too much of a duplication, and that the article is about a mathematical concept, not a computer science one. So whether there is an algorithm that filters out those properties is irrelevant to this article - in math, you can do things without algorithms (isn't math great?)" Nobody mentioned computer science. The Procrustes algorithm dates to Gower, 1975. It has only recently been used as a mathematical tool in computer science.
Just in case you think algorithms are confined to computer science, I got this from wikipedia: "Al-Khwarizmi, the 9th century Persian astronomer of the Caliph of Baghdad, wrote several important books, on the Hindu-Arabid numerals and on methods for solving equations. The word algorithm is derived from his name, and the word algebra from the title of one of his works, Al-Jabr wa-al-Muqabilah."
With respect to the word 'duplication', is this not an encyclopaedia? There are two definitions in the mathematical literature. Is it not more comprehensive to include both? That my original alteration lacked sufficient clarity is unfortunate, but not necessarily a reason to discount it entirely.
I used a cube because it is easy to visualise. I should have made that more clear. As in Oleg's original definition, two objects have the same shape if one can be transformed to exactly match the other, using only Euclidean transformations. These Euclidean transformations are also called rigid motions, or Euclidean motions, in geometry. The question of equivalence of reflections comes up quite a lot. The definition of shape is sometimes extended to include all orthogonal transformations, plus scaling, i.e., transformations that preserve relative distances and angles (google mathworld, orthogonal transformations for a good definition). Orthogonal transformations include reflection. This implies that the shape of an object is equivalent to the shape of its reflection.
"But are these two really considered different shapes?" This question is not clear to me, I am afraid. I would appreciate it if you would expand a little. Are you asking if the object and its reflection have the same shape? Or, are you asking if the object and its reflection are the same objects? Euclidean transformations involve scaling, rotating and translating. The reflection question is a good question, and there is no perfect answer to it.
Finally, Oleg, if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that shape is clearly defined in $n$-dimensional space by the likes of Kendall and Le, and Goodall. And reflection is discussed.
I admire your enthusiasm in extending Wikipedia. My intention was merely to do the same, by adding the extra knowledge I had about the definition of shape. Your reaction was not appreciated.
"According to one common definition, the shape of an object is all the geometrical information that remains after location, scale and rotational effects are filtered out. This definition implicitly assumes that it is possible to filter these effects out. Another definition is that the shape of an object is all of the geometrical information that is invariant to location, scale and rotation."
The definition used in the first sentence originates, according to Dryden & Mardia, 1998, in a 1977 paper by Kendall, "The Diffusion of Shape". Kendall's 1984 paper started off the whole Procrustes analysis methodology, linked to at the bottom of the shapes page.
I agree that I may be incorrect in concluding that the first definition "implicitly assumes" a filtration method is possible. It would be better, in my updated opinion, if I had said "suggests". I feel that this definition unnecessarily motivates Procrustes analysis, a filtration method, to mathematically analyse differences between shapes.
So, yes, the definitions are mathematically equivalent. They are not, however, equivalent. Both definitions are in common use in modern mathematics. As such, it seems reasonable to me that both definitions should be included in an article in an Encyclopaedia, and the reason that there are two definitions should also be included. This is why I had three sentences; two definitions and a reason.
My alterations may have needed improvement. I do not, however, think it is good practice to just try to wipe them out, and call the words I used clumsy without justification. My last comment may have been somewhat antagonistic, but I am not yet ready to retract it. --anon
may I have the reference for your opening paragraph? The bit about size being dilation, specifically. Regards, anon
Discussion continues at talk:shape
Да ди ши олег ту крези кэ ар фи гини сэ винэ ши алции? Кум ар скимба аста ситуациуния? аму дакэ ому ну штие лимба сау ситуация нуастрэ, кум поате сэ-ши деа ку пэрерия? ну-и корект фрате, ну-и корект. унде маи пуи кэ дакэ вреи сэ вотези требуие сэ аи 25 де контрибуции ла актив. Аста е нормал; аша се прочедиязэ де обичеи пе теме де астия маи песте тот. Дечи чеи каре ну штиу лимба нич ну пот сэ контрибуие. Маи гини дечидем нои аколо ши гата. Салутэри ши нума гини! Ия зи, ну-и аша кэ ну скриу рэу пи малдавияниеште пентру ун ромын? Constantzeanu 01:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DavidHouse "Hi David. Just a tiny remark. Per the math style manual, one should make variables italic. I fixed that at Borel algebra. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)" -- Oops! Must have missed that. Thanks for pointing that out, and thanks for the correction.
What is the quickest way to find all the links that are in both list of rappers and list of hip-hop musicians and remove the repeats from the latter? we're trying to get rid of redundancy, but this seems like it would take forever without a method or program or something. Thanks-- Urthogie 15:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
You are suggesting a big change. As before, I would like some discussion before hand. Say you post this suggestion on both talk:list of hip hop musicians and talk:list of rappers and wait around a week for an answer. Some people might disagree with this split. No rush. :) Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 19:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Its been 3 days without any opposition, so I guess its time to bug you. Need anything done for this to happen? Thanks!-- Urthogie 10:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I copied your new proposal to talk:list of hip hop musicians, and let us see what people have to say. If there is no opposition, I will work on that towards the end of the week. And let us continue the conversation there, I might forget to check this section later as it moves higher and higher in the table of contents. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 17:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Bonaparte is trying to sneak back! -- Ghirla | talk 18:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Apologies. I wasn't thinking straight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AJR 1978 ( talk • contribs) .
Salut Oleg. Sunt cam supărat acum fiind că mă simt tras de ambele părţi după opiniile lor. Când, pe bună dreptate, am început RfC împotriva lui Anittas, au venit alţii şi mi-au spus "Ce mai, dece ai început RfC-ul împotriva lui?". Când l-am blocat pe Mikka, a venit Ghirlandajo şi a zis "Ce mai, dece te coalizezi cu troll-ii?". Acum că îl suport pe Bonaparte în acest caz, vii tu şi îmi spui "Ce mai, dece îl suporţi pe Bonaparte?". Şi după aceea spui că postul meu nu va fi luat în serios! Dacă nu ţi-ai dat seama până acum, eu nu fac interestul nimănui aici - nu-s nici omul lui Anittas sau al lui Bonaparte, nici al lui Node - pe scurt, apăr dreptatea şi celelalte valori în care cred eu aici la Wikipedia. În orice caz - Bonaparte a vorbit frumos cu mine şi cu alţii, fapt care mă determină să cred că el nu este un troll şi că a făcut ce a făcut fiind că nu a fost total înţeles aici la Wikipedia. Pe când Anittas, de exemplu, a fost aproşat de zeci de persoane care i-au spus atât de frumos că ce face nu este corect, lui Bonaparte nu i sa spus în acelaşi fel. El a fost repede blocat, repede i sa dat ultimatum, etc. Din cauza asta, din cauza că se simţea că nu este înţeles, a făcut lucruri care păreau tot mai mult anti-politică. Cred că prin puţină toleranţă şi înţelegere - şi empatie - Bonaparte va face un contributor bun. El nu a făcut, de exemplu, insulte ad hominem repetate în acelaşi fel ca şi Anittas, iar uite că Anittas e cel neblocat şi Bonaparte e cel blocat. Sigur, trebuie discutat mult cu el înainte de a fi readmis, şi posibil ar fi bine să fie "watched" când va veni înapoi, dar altfel eu suport deblocarea sa. Poate că este şi din cauza faptului că eu sunt destul de anti-blocare, cel puţin pe termen lung de peste 24 de ore.
Ronline
✉
07:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
So you are antiblock you say? Ronline, a big problem of Wikipedia is that there are a few (like Bonaparte) who are wasting the time of the many. A few trolls who are a drain of resourses. Even if they may make some good contributions, removing them from Wikipedia will be much more gain than loss.
And don't you follow WP:AN/I? Bonaparte is world-famous. Basically all administrators on Wikipedia know him. And cheating by voting with multiple accounts, that's much worse than anything Anittas ever did. That's a shame to us, Romanians. This kind of people must go. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 18:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thanx,i dont know wat a admin does anyway.but please dont block me.-- Jayanthv86 14:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
--+I withdraw. Hello everybody,thanks for opening my eyes.I am such a loser,I dont even know what a admin does and i have nominated myself.from now on,i will leave edit summaries.I am barely two months old in wiki and i was audacious enough to ask for adminship.Sorry for wasting your time.-- Jayanthv86 15:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder to write edit summaries. I'll try to be a more disciplined Wikipedian. Shoefly 23:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I know this might sound like a minor quibble, but when your bot prints out the edit summary usage of adminship candidates, there is a doubled "and". For example:
"Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits..."
Could you remove the doubled "and"? Thanks. Graham/pianoman87 talk 04:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
hello oleg -- i would appreciate you unblocking the USC Trojans Football page. i have put in a short explanation about the dispute about several of sc's claimed national championships. it is done is a respectful way. there are no nasty comments. it is straight forward. it seems many people (i can only assume sc supporters) want this to be a type of entry that would be approved by the sc p.r. department. as you notice there has never been any challenge of any of the facts i have in this entry. in includes the championships (most of them) which are not disputed. the biggest complaint is that this doesnt belong here. there is also a complaint about my brief explanation about about the national championship process. it is a very short explanation. there is never a complaint when i put factual material that the sc supporter find positive. but lo and behold when i try to put some balance in here (mentioning that TWO of the national championship claims are disputed) they constantly remove it and put in a couple lines. it is like putting in the lyndon johnson section -- "the vietnam war was controversial." THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME EXPLANATION -- this is not a space issue. also -- and i am sorry if i am getting personal here -- one of the main people who has been changing my entries and replacing it with one or two lines glossing over the issue -- is MisfitToys. this gentleman -- if you look at his wikipedia history -- seems to have a great alligence and partisenship to sc. he complains about the unecessary amount of infomation i have included (he says it is too much and doesnt belong there.) PLEASE look at the entry written by MisfitToys about a man by the name of sam barry. sam barry happens to have been an sc athletic pioneer. MisfitToys has TONS of info in his entry about Sam Barry. When it comes to Sam Barry, MisfitToys doesnt seem to have problem with the amount of information. I think it would be fair to say that Sam Barry in the overall scheme of things is far less important to the world sports than USC Trojans Football. This is suppose to be a free and open encyclopedia. I NEVER TRIED TO BLOCK MisfitToys. We have a choice. Do we want an encyclopedia where people who are partisens are allowed to remove items where a balanced view is presented? AGAIN MisfitToys has not found one thing in my entry that is inaccurate. He simply doesnt like it. I dont think it is fair to allow people who clearly are partisens to remove entries and replace them with entries that skirt over controversy. if we can have a VERY LONG entry for sam barry -- i think we can have a few extra paragraphs to explain this issue of the sc national championships. --unsigned
Hi! I see that you have a tool that counts – among other things – users' edit summaries. Is it an open tool, or does it rely on its boss? Thanks. -- Eddi ( Talk) 15:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
First, thanks for moving my Gerhard Hessenberg page - I noticed the capitalization problem too late. I'm in the process of making my first math article (its Plotkin bound). One difficulty I am running into is equation labells. Is there any way to label an equation so that I can refer to it later on? The latex \label{} and then \ref{} don't seem to work in wikipedia and I've been unable to find the answer anywhere. Thanks, -- Pierremenard 17:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Pierremenard 02:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I am having a dispute with Rick Norwood concerning Division by zero. I really don't like where this is going, and I'll be grateful if you give us some feedback. -- Meni Rosenfeld ( talk) 19:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Your bot is doing something odd to my RfA. Could you look into it? — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 12:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thanks for the help! I'll change my preferences. JamieJones talk 12:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Your bot's repeatedly added edit summary counts for RFAs it's already posted in. If this keeps up I might have to temporarily block it, otherwise... NSL E ( T+ C) 13:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I don't mind at all... I just forget. This is how it happens, often: I look at "show preview" to check how the markup looks, and then click on "save page" before I enter an edit summary. I'll try, but I am a bit absentminded... sorry. MathStatWoman 03:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Wow, your talk page is big! I can definitely do edit summaries when I do stuff. Have a good one. That CS Guy 23:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Heya, not sure if you're watching that old section, but I posted up there that another 3 days have gone by without opposition. In addition, I also suggested an idea about redlinks which may be helpful. Thanks so much!-- Urthogie 15:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Oleg,
I would not say that things are looking up for the relation (mathematics) article. The actual situation is that I (and I think Arthur Rubin, though I can't speak for him) are reluctant to start an edit war like the recent one in function (mathematics). But I will start one shortly if Awbrey does not listen to us. Please read the discussion. The definition of relation given in the intro is incorrect and does not agree with the formal definition given subsequently (which is correct for one style). Respectful consideration must be given to the definition which identifies the relation with its graph, which remains the dominant definition of this concept (and which is also simpler and so should be given first). For content rather than style (it is a draft and it needs examples and certainly some rewriting) see my User: Randall Holmes/Sandbox/relation (mathematics), in which both styles of definition are discussed from a neutral point of view. Randall Holmes 17:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Oleg,
I request mediation on relation (mathematics). Jon Awbrey must be stopped, to put it bluntly. Randall Holmes 17:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I apologize for being quite so blunt; I have been getting increasingly upset, and will try to moderate this. Randall Holmes 19:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg. I don't know if you saw my edit summary here from last night. I've been thinking about it, and now I actually think it's not true that a function has to be constant on an atomic set of a measure space. Consider for example the Dirac measure δa(E)=χE(a) for some fixed a. Do you know anything about this? I kind of want it to be true. - lethe talk 20:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought I had a counterexample, but it violated the assumption that you use the Borel sigma-algebra on the reals. It's been a while since I did measure theory; I guess this assumption is so obvious that it needn't be mentioned? -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 13:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Oleg, the Bot seems to still be a little under the weather, as you can see from this edit at RFA. Got your screwdriver handy? Chick Bowen 03:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I patched my script to cry wolf and exit when it repeatedly fails to get information from the server. Hopefully that will avoid the situation as above, when a user was given a 0% edit summary usage, when the actual figure was 100%. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 08:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Seeing all that math above reminded me of something, Oleg. A couple of weeks ago I had an exchange with a new user, since apparently disappeared, about Herzog-Schönheim conjecture, which he had just added. I asked him to provide some context but I guess he never did. Any thoughts, or should I just put an {{ expert}} tag on it? I don't know if any of the stub categories here would work better, too. Thanks. Chick Bowen 04:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi!
I have a question
In latex I would write
The blablabla....
\begin{equation} ax^2+bx+c = 0 \label{eq:quadratic} \end{equation}
According to equation \eqref{eq:quadratic} ....
How can I numerate and make further references to the formulas that are written inside a page?
Thanks,
Diego Torquemada 13:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Enochlau. I have a comment about this edit you made. I believe that was a typical example when one should not use the admin rollback tool, but rather revert the old-fashioned way, and with an edit summary. I believe Mikka's edit was in good faith, the category he put the article in was sound, and everything was OK. Thus, you owe Mikka, and everybody who has that article on the watchlist, an explanation for why you reverted the edit.
That explanation can go on the article talk page, but even better, the most appropriate place is the edit summary. In short, also per the new Wikipedia:Administrator Code of Conduct, I would like to ask you to not use the rollback button when an edit summary is necessary. Also note that Mikka is an old wolf, but people may also take offence at being reverted with the vandal tool, if their edit was in good faith.
Wonder what you think, you can reply here, I will keep your page on my watchlist. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 02:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC) (copied my above post from Enochlau's page who replied on my page instead of his Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 06:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC))
(copied from User talk:Beoknoc) Please stop that. The text written there is much clearer and more accurate than what you provided, and we don't sign our names in articles either. Dysprosia 02:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this is how i talk... if it is, i'll know by your response.
A) i didn't put my name on it. I am not ben cook.
B) no, I feel that what i put is a better summary and is easy to understand. if we could put both, that would be OK (I had done this originaly but someone deleted my thing). you could even have yours first. if you could pass this on to what's his name, that would be great. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beoknoc ( talk • contribs) .
interesting, i find your comments strange and agrivating. as dy--- said, this is an encyclopedia. Look in any encyclopedia and you will find the more complex version and a simpler version for studentsdoing research (my 2 kids use wickipedia for almost every assignment, and they were unable to understand your formula). because of this, i feel that it is nessesary to have both formulas posted. also, no offence meant, but, as my 12 year old would say, "up urs". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beoknoc ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 29 January 2006
Could you keep an eye on I. M. Vinogradov? It seems we have a revert war - I am going to bed. Charles Matthews 22:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help from me as well! -- BACbKA 13:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at here. -- Ragib 02:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I hate to ask you again, but the talk page of the article has started become quite nasty , with words like "Bigot", "Liar", "Coward", "waste of space". Since I had edited the article in the past, and had some disagreement with the parties involved in the current edit war, it would be a conflict of interest in my part to take any admin action over these type of personal attacks between the editors. I think it is time for an RFC, because the conflict has been going on for more than 3 months now. --
Ragib
05:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, my edit counter, and contribution tree are somewhat merged... that is, the edit counter link is probably sufficient to access a person's contribution tree. So, it's probably sufficient to only post the link to the one tool in RFA now, if you want. As for edit summaries, I don't know how long it will be until that's available from the toolserver... possibly not for a long time, because there's no database index that covers it, and I haven't figured out any user-friendly ways around that yet. So it's good you kept your code working the whole time. -- Interiot 10:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I have been using those more often, though I sometimes refrain from doing so to avoid confusion. Thanks! --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 18:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, this is Mb1000. You recently voted Neutral on my request for adminship. Is there anyway you could reconsider and vote to Support me? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. -- Mb1000 18:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
P.S. If you have any questions you'd like to ask me, just post them on the comments page. I'll answer them as soon as I see them. Thanks.
how do I sign my name? I tried (Beoknoc) but it didn't work.
By the way, if you are able to send me that un-editable message, you must have some sort of power in the wiki world. Please fire yourself promptly for abuse of a new user.
(beoknoc)
I think i have it...
beoknoc 04:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Yay! May I ask why you care about some wierdo's desire to add something to the LCM article?
beoknoc 04:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Privyet Oleg! I notice that you like perl programming as do I... It is one of the best languages that I have found to write in. I like the intrinsic ability to deal with hashes. 0waldo 13:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for cropping the image I uploaded: RightTriangleWithIncircle2.jpg
I made the image myself, using Microsoft PowerPoint. I would like to correct the license so that it is not deleted (the image should be in the public domain). Can you tell me the steps for doing this? I've looked in the on-line help area and can't find the steps that I need.
Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bronsongardner ( talk • contribs) .
About Image:RightTriangleWithIncircle.jpg. I think, all you need to do, is go to that image, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:RightTriangleWithIncircle.jpg, and type there
==Licence== {{PD-self}} ~~~~
That will specifiy that the image is made by you and is in public domain, and there will be your signature. Hope that helps. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 01:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I knew that box was there, but never really tried to utilize it. Now that I am a changed Wikipedian I will make sure that the box is filled, so that people realize that I am not vandalizing anything. Again, thanks for the heads up! Thistheman 05:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you take a look at Talk:al-Khwarizmi#Al-Khwarizmi has Turkish Origin.? A user keeps inserting that al-Khwarizmi was Turkish without providing sources which back this up. He seems to be immune to discussion, but I think starting an RfC over this would be a bit over the top. Cheers, — Ruud 19:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
ok, that wasn't the best heading but it does not matter anyway. What exactly was it about my articles that seemed non-encyclopedic, can I not explain stuff out or what? TheHorse'sMouth 01:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I undid your edit at divisor, because, as far as I am aware, 0 is indeed a divisor of zero. No problems of dividing by zero show up, and the definition works just fine. Wonder what you think.
By the way, it is good if you use an edit summary when you contribute, and also, it is good if you use the notation Z or for integers, than just Z. These are two small tips. :) Welcome! Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 21:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
You have been very patient with me. If I remember that night now I could say that night I was very tired. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cikicdragan ( talk • contribs) .
Just a note here: Zero certainly divides zero, but I'd be careful about calling it a "divisor of zero". Sometimes that phrase is used for a nonzero element that can be multiplied by a nonzero element, resulting in zero. That is, an integral domain is a ring that has no divisors of zero. -- Trovatore 01:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Logically, if one number divide another number, why we cannot call it divisor, without further staff? Now, I'm learning discrete math, and there we have this definition of divisibility: Let a and b are integers. We say that a divide b if a is not zero and there exist integer k so that b is equal to a*k. a is divisor of b and so on... -- Čikić Dragan 12:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey Oleg. I share your concerns about Tony's behavior. Let's see what happens at Aaron's draft "RfC". We can always file a "real" one, or reformat it or whatever we feel is appropriate later. I would urge you to engage Tony, there and elsewhere, about your concerns. — Paul August ☎ 19:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Greeting, Oleg. Thanks for helping to clean up my talkpage. What do you suppose this Gobtude thing is all about? I'm a bit confused. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 19:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey, i just looked back at the cross product page, and I noticed that you put back Lagrange's formula in its original spot after I thought we had come to a compromise. I still think Lagrange's formula does *not* belong in the "properties of a cross product" section - since it is most certainly not a "property" of the cross product.
Secondly, you reverted my un-signed-in edit about the 3 component vectors. I read the edit note. A cross product can be done on a vector with ANY amount of components. I think this should be stressed in the article, and as a first stress i wanted to note that the section on matrices is very very narrow.
Fresheneesz 04:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi - any reason why User:Mathbot/Page1 is listed as a geography stub? Grutness... wha? 05:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Could you move Biruni to al-Biruni for me? Thanks — Ruud 05:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if you already knew this, but I just wanted to tell you that I replied on the talk page for list of hip hop musicians a couple days ago.-- Urthogie 10:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Only one way of doing things? Hmmm. :)
Though I'm back, I'm not too active. I'm particularly eager to see what's decided on the Hewitt affair, although don't want to get involved in the "vortex" arguments he's spinning over there.-- CSTAR 16:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Check the latest exploits by Anittas' buddy. Also check the contributions. -- Ghirla | talk 18:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I found Binomial proportion confidence interval in the dead end pages, It has been on there for about 3 weeks and its author has made no other contributions. As I have no skills in this area, perhaps could you take it under your wing. If it is not salvageable, i will recommend it as an AFD or perhaps a redirect MNewnham 19:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Commander Keane. A couple of days ago, when I removed the links to the wikipedia bootcamp from the welcome template, you put the link to {helpme} back, citing consensus on the talk page. Well, it seems that now you are breaking that consensus, by adding in the bootcamp link.
I am sure that Danny feels very strongly about the bootcamp, but as you noticed, the opinions are leaning towards removing that link.
I could use my administrator's privileges to undo your edit, but I will not do that. I have spent a week arguing that matter on the talk page (with the bootcamp link in), and am willing to spend a week more. But for future reference, I suggest you act with more discernment in these matters. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk)
It's nothing to do with consensus, it's about helping new users. Danny wants to help new users (he has to deal with them on the phone every day), I want to help new users. Take a look at User talk:Jrbrunger. Read it. In two minutes I was there, we got a new article, we probably secured a fantastic new contributor. That's what this is all about.-- Commander Keane 04:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I figured I was a rouge admin, but i'm glad i've come a long way into the realm of respected admins(apparently anyway, from your comment). Even when I disagree with others within the project, I consider it my duty as an advisor at Esperanza to maintain a calm and cool demeanor when doing so. Who knows? Maybe I can make it onto the Arbcom in 2015 or so ;-) Karm a fist 12:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Mulţumesc pentru atenţionare. Am să încerc, însă nu promit ;-) -- Romihaitza 15:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I will take your advice and guidance. Actually, one of the first things I did was to create a user account with Wikipedia I thought Wikipedia saved a cookie so that I wouldn't have to log in each time, but I suppose that doesn't always work. Also.I do use the preview button, but probably not as much as I should. I'll do better in the future in that regards. Thanks for the heads up and your patience with my learning the system.
Please consider stopping Mathbot from posting the little chunk of statistics on RfA. It promotes a form of statisticsitis which is not conductive to the intended purpose of the page. People should be getting their own stats if those are part of their personal criterion. Thanks. Rob Church ( talk) 02:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey Oleg. I tried several ways of making the vector bold (e.g., \bf, \textbf, \boldmath) None seem to be working. Then I resorted to underline. Do you know how to do it? For all x is correct. Thanks! deeptrivia ( talk) 04:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Flcelloguy. Despite of the numerous people who object to the link to the bootcamp in the welcome template, and the fact that it is not in fact necessary, with the {{ helpme}} template being enough for their project, the people from the bootcamp project keep on using their administrative privileges to put the bootcamp link back in. I don't plan to get involved in such a game, as I find it silly to push one's point with edit wars using admin privileges rather than talk, but something should be done about it. Wonder what you think. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 15:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Oleg, could you please look at this discussion Talk:Many-worlds interpretation.. This guy has accused me of practically everything, including being educated by Jesuits (which is true but irrelevant).-- CSTAR 00:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/proffer -- Trovatore 05:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. I have increased the size of the image so that it is much easier to read on the page. I'll work on moving the text from the picture into the body of the text. Thank you again for your suggestions.
Bronson Gardner
Dear Oleg, the final term is approaching for the moldovan wiki vote. Considering the status of this wiki, would you consider changing your vote from "neutru" to "contra"? Having a clear-cut internal vote will probably strengthen the position when discussing the problem on meta. Dpotop 11:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Flcelloguy. Thanks a lot for your excellent handling of the bootcamp issue at template talk:welcome. I must say that I have been very impressed with your diplomacy and insight in a number of places on Wikipedia. I believe you would be a valuable addition to the arbitration committee, should you decide to run for the job. Keep on doing the good work! Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tony. I just stumbled upon your responses at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Holding a Lynching?. I must say that I agree with you that my comment, in its own heading (RFC against Tony Sidayway) was an overkill, and may have been interpretted as a lynching. That was by no means my intention, and I appologize.
To explain myself, that was a somwhat "natural" reaction to the comments above that heading, which amounted to "Tony is perpetually wheel-warring, and RfC's against him won't work". I believe most people got my intention, with a few exceptions, but of course, that approach did not please you. So, again, that was a bit heavy-handed, and again, I am sorry.
However, I do not think it was necessary (as you suggested) to talk about this in advance with you on your talk page, or that you and me should have had some kind of prior encounters to justify such a statement as I had written at WP:AN/I. I am sure that you are aware that Wikipedia is overall a small place, and that you had gained some kind of notoriety about having disagreements with other administrators which would lead to "wheel warring" (yeah, I know you don't like the term, I know you believe it is abused, and I know that you have your own explanations for your actions).
That it to say, public criticism from persons you never encountered and who never wrote on your talk page I believe is something acceptable and to be expected. So I don't think that one I got wrong. But again, I could have handled it better.
You can reply here if you have comments, I will keep your talk page on my wathclist for a while. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 23:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
This is getting interesting. Paraphrasing you from your RfC, I might learn something. I would think that you would be right, if we assume that there was a personal dispute (say between you and me). But this is not how I saw it. I had never met you before that time, so I did not have any dispute to solve.
What I saw, was a note at WP:AN/I about a wheel war, with you part of it (with the proper disclaimer for "wheel war", written above). Given your history of wheel wars before, and how troubling that is for the community, I would think that in that context an RfC was more appropriate way of doing things than a dispute resolution. Wonder what your comment is on this. (As stated above, I take it more as an opportunity to learn rather than attempting to be confrontational, I believe the issue with the lynching to have been closed, and with no damage on any side.) Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
RfC is also request for comment on user conduct. By no means do I mean to make this into an argument, but I would like to point out that I believe you were aware that you were engaging in wheel warring, and of people's comments about that. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 05:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know whom to write to, but tell me, has Wikipedia site been behaving badly for you the past week? Over here, the site sometimes take very long to load. But often it works just to click the link again, and then it works ok. In other words: I find some article, click on it, nothing happens for many seconds (and it then loads after about 20 seconds). But if I click on it again, it loads fine. Does this happen at your place? Weierstraß ( talk) 17:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC).
Thanks for toning down your remark before I finished the message I was writing to you about it. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 17:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, You addressed an edit I made to correlation -- namely you deleted it.
the change was as follows: - ==A note about "random" variables== - Several places in this article refer to "random" variables. By definition a random variable has no correlation with anything else (if it does have a correlation the variable is either 1) not random, or 2) the correlation is a coincidence likely due to a small sample size). It is more accurate to think of these not as random variables, but simply as variables that have an undetermined relationship.
Can you address the underlying misnomer, in laymans terms, on the "random variables" entry? The misnomer is vaguely reference there, but I think a lot of people (myself included) are not satisfied with the explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phli ( talk • contribs)
Please see Talk:Dirichlet_problem D'n 03:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Signed measure, and answer there. The last thing I want is to start an edit war with you - or any other user, for that matter. -- Fibonacci 03:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Replied on its talk. :) Gosh Fibonacci, you are quick to assume the worst. :) Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Wow. Oleg, I can honestly say you are one of my true friends around here. I do want to say that I am not sure if I've ever quite had to exercise my social skills as much as I'm having to do now. Good practice, that: as we usually all are heads-down, thinking equations in solitude. But really, it seems as if everyone is upset or upsettable, fragile, argumentative or misbehaving and bad. Ohh-wee. Having to navigate these social waters is about as challenging (and rewarding!) as having to solve a good equation. linas 06:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
This edit of yours looks suspect. I would have guessed it is either
or
Could you please check? Tell me if you want me to have a proper think about it. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 11:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
You're right. I hadn't seen that there are many remainder terms. I was in a rush, so I had no time to read the whole article carefully, and since you had obviously studied it — you wouldn't edit it without, would you ;) — I thought it best to flag the edit as suspicious and let you handle it. I guess I owe you now. Cheers, Jitse Niesen ( talk) 18:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Я не говорю, что нужно создавать такую категорию. Гаусс был немцем по национальности но жил сначала в Свящ. Римской империи. а потом Ганноверском королевстве.
Я всё же не понимаю, почему ты не хочешь сказать боту, чтобы он не менял страну, ведь, если человек был французом (например), то британцем он никак не станет.
Я считаю также, что следует писать страны в том порядке, в котором математики в них жили. Например, для Арнольда следует писать Soviet Union/Russia (или Soviet Union/Russia/France) вместо Russia/Soviet Union.-- Ahonc 13:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, it's my fault, as I write very fast, and I write several articles at the same time. Therefore I often forget to add the edit summary and the minor edit mark. Sorry. I promise to do better in the fure. Thanks. Attilios.
hi, I read your message in my talk page. Can you explane me what is the problem in a little italian if you can. I'm here on italian wikipedia -- 62.94.208.44 20:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know anything about vector valued measures. But it sounds fun... when I'm done with this semester's duties, I'll start investigating and write the article. -- Fibonacci 22:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Oleg. Thanks for your welcome, and for telling me about the edit summary. I think Wikipedia is a grand idea and fantastically usefull. I would like to cite Wikipedia articles in publications along with my journal sources. Is there yet a standard way to do this? or are the journals still getting their heads around Wikipedia? BTW I like your first name: My partner Mindal and I have been discussing names for our first child - do you know what "Oleg" means? Is it perhaps related to Olaf, Oleif, Leif (the last a viking / english / norse name meaning "beloved")? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RodVance ( talk • contribs)
... for Data transformation service -> Data Transformation Services please? This article's title is simply wrong and has always been wrong. Microsoft's product is called "Data Transformation Services" and that's what the article is about. See http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dtssql/dts_basic_5zg3.asp . Thanks. Stevage 13:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello. I've just created an article about positive and negative sets. It's short and messy, but (I hope) useful. Please read it and comment.
On a totally unrelated business, I seem to remember you wanted to know the meaning of your name. I've looked it up - It's Russian, and means "holy". -- Fibonacci 04:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Fibonacci. I did look at the article. Well, I think that article is a bit reduntant. The only place positive sets show up is in the Hahn decomposition theorem for a signed measure. And there the concept of positive set is already defined, and does not take more than two lines. The properties of those sets are expored as the proof of that theorem goes along. So I don't see why you need a separate article for that concept. Am I missing something? Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 16:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Fine. I was unsure about whether it should have a capital "T" or not and a search on Google returned multiple results with capital "T"s instead of small ones. My mistake! -- The Neokid 18:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Manual of Style says that you should not upcase things except for proper names. So clearly, it is correct to uppercase the name Stokes or Newton. The question has to do with things like Stokes Theorem and Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. In my experience, these phrases are in fact proper names, and in general, it is not only accptable, but it is required to uppercase the first letter of each word, with the exception of minor words such as "a", "of", or "the". So I believe that it is correct to write "Stokes Theorem" and incorrect to write "Stokes theorem". Likewise, it is correct to write "Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation" and incorrect to write "Newton's law of universal gravitation." If you do not believe me, then please consult any general reference on physics or mathematics, and you will see that the uppercasing is correct. Perhaps Wikipedia needs to ammend its Manual of Style to make an unambiguous policy in this regard. -- Metacomet 19:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
BTW, this rule applies even when a person's name is not involved. For example, it is correct to write the "Fundamental Law of Calculus" and incorrect to write the "fundamental law of calculus." -- Metacomet 19:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I have no problem if that is the policy. But I do think that maybe the policy should be reviewed. -- Metacomet 19:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
You are correct that it needs the possessive apostrophe. But, for the record, I did not set it up that way. I skipped the use of the apostrophe in my comments above because I was being lazy, not because I thought it was correct. -- Metacomet 19:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Oleg. I noticed that you removed my addition to the article boundary (topology) about the boundary of a boundary, with the allegation that it was false. But it's easy to see that ∂∂S ⊆ ∂S: ∂S is always closed, and every closed set contains its own boundary. I do see that Mousomer subsequently reworked my addition to state that the boundary of a boundary is equal to the boundary (rather than contained in). I guess that statement is obviously wrong (consider the rationals), but I think it would have been better if you had reverted his edit, instead of removing a once useful statement. Anyway, the whole point of the addition is the following. One often hears that "the boundary of a boundary is empty". This statement is only true for boundaries of manifolds (or more generally, simplicial complexes), and not for general topological boundaries, and I do believe that this deserves mention in the article.
One notes that the reason that the manifold boundary is different from the topological boundary on this matter is that in the manifold case, one always endows the boundary with its subspace topology. In the topology of the original manifold, it is still true, for example, that the boundary of the boundary of the disk is nonempty. I wonder whether it would also be true more generally. - lethe talk 19:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit. It's rather pathetic that I never noticed that. Leithp (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Oleg. Since you were also concerned about my deletion of R.Koot's user and talk pages, I went ahead and asked for review at WP:AN. It's always sad to lose a valuable editor, in any case. :( — HorsePunchKid→ 龜 2005-12-11 06:40:13 Z
Hello. You seem to be good at writing software to help automate projects in Wikipedia editing. Could you take a look at my recent comment at talk:cut-the-knot? I think the number of such links may be so large that getting the software to help may be worthwhile. Michael Hardy 00:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Oleg. I had a idea regarding your bot. How hard would it be to set up a page listing all of the redlinks in the mathematics articles space? Say at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Red links. This purpose of the page would be slightly different than the requested articles page. It would be to keep track of how many broken links we have, to see what redirects need to be made, and also to give ideas for needed articles. It could be updated once a week/month depending on how difficult it is to scan all the articles. What are your thoughts? -- Fropuff 20:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! I would think that 95% or more of the redlinks on math pages would be mathematical in nature, but I guess we won't know until we have a list of such links. -- Fropuff 23:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Damn, that was fast. Thanks! I guess I should have known there would be a ton of them. I guess the most logical thing to do would be to break them up into pages (0-9), A, B, ... just like the list of mathematical topics pages. -- Fropuff 07:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I've repaired my mistake.-- Bonaparte talk 22:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
That conversation was getting a little long... sorry about that. The reason I kept asking was that I wasn't sure if my question was being conveyed, and I thought there might be some reason that the article was done the way it was. I'm new here and learning, so be patient :) And thanks for the tip on edit summaries. -- Monguin61 23:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, you said it already. I'm sorry. I'm not used to it. I'm going to. -- VKokielov 06:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
(move to talk:Stein manifold). Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 16:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Interested in your thoughts, as you have contributed a lot to Maths articles in general. It seems Andrei Polyanin added references to his own books to many pages in the wikipedia maths articles (see his contributions). In fact his only contribution has been to add these references. On some articles he is the only reference. This seems wrong. Should we remove them all? RandomProcess 17:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Salut Oleg,
I've just created Wikipedia:Moldovan Wikipedians' notice board. I invite you to join.
Cu respect, Node 00:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Tell me, what's "original research" in mathematics? Everything, or else nothing. I can't seem to understand how you can distinguish original research here. -- VKokielov 02:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding User:204.10.222.251, I have unblocked the user. This is the first edit in weeks and is of the most basic "user test" kind: adding "Media:example.ogg" to an article. Nothing deleted. No profanity or attacks. This is a user test and cannot be immediately assumed to be the same user. Please don't bite the newbies. - Tεx τ urε 18:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I normally would not have reversed a 24 hour block for that very reason. I only did so because the "vandalism" was of such a "user test" nature, the only edit in weeks, and another admin extended the block to 6 weeks and cites your block as the only reason. Please see User talk:Hall_Monitor#User:204.10.222.251 for more information. - Tεx τ urε 18:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips, I will try to do better in the future. But I have to ask - every time you see someone fail to put in an edit summary or capitalize in a correct way but inconsistently with the style guide, do you write them a message? You must spend a lot of time writing these requests, as I see several people here have commented on this. User:Debivort
Hi Oleg! I've added a new section about some history of division by zero. I hope that clarifies the relevance of Brahmagupta in the article. Thanks! deeptrivia ( talk) 18:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I ran into the Wikipedia:Missing science topics project and looks cool. I have a question though. Do you happen to know why some articles have incomplete names, like Neumann Differential E....? If you happen to know, could you please explain at Wikipedia talk:Missing science topics. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 02:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Somehow HTML markup on Mac looks extra small and TeX markup looks extra large. I am new to Wikipedia and I do not know when to use what. This is why I preferred to use TeX markup throughout on Egorov's theorem. I'd appreciate some suggestions on the appropriate way to mix HTML and TeX Badri Narayan
span.texhtml { font-family: serif; }
I will try not to insert too many newlines, but I don't entirely understand all your remarks; doubtless with time I will understand these things better. Is there a way to get LaTeX notation to be smaller? I have often put remarks in, under "discussion", describing my contributions; now that the edit summary has been brought to my attention I will use it. Thanks...
Randall Holmes 15:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
later. :) Just again, you should hit the "Enter" key on your keyboard only when you want to start a new paragraph. You can see from the text I typed in here that hitting that "Enter" key amounts to broken lines and does not look good. Trust your web browser to move you to the next line. :)
Hi Oleg, I have a notation question that should be right up your alley! P=)
Should Latq = Lat{APg:TvLq} and Longq = Long{APg:TvLq} or just Lat{TvLq} and Long{TvLq} (or would either way be acceptable)? On the surface, it would seem that Lat{TvLq} and Long{TvLq} are the proper choices, since APg is a constant between two "Lat"s and "Long"s. However, both APg and TvL can be "elliptized", using both for each(?). Let's say APe = APe{APg:TvL} and TpL = TpL{APe:TvL} (I don't think the actual equations are pertinent, so I won't complicate the discussion! P=): In this case, either APg or TvL could be the variable, and the other the constant (or both could be variables, in the case of double or iterative elliptic integrals), so it would seem that both arguments are required. But the same could be said for Lat and Long, too.
The immediate purpose here, is to define Long:
So, does Long' = Long'{APg:TvL} = sin{APg}×sec{Lat{APg:TvL}}2, thus or does Long' = Long'{TvL} = sin{APg}×sec{Lat{TvL}}2, ? If the two argument model is used, do you need to use partial differentiation notation, or is this adequate? Also, (even just) cos{Lat{TvL}} wouldn't be considered a composite function, would it? ~Kaimbridge~ 20:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, I think one argument for the function is fine, since you keep the second one fixed. But again, your notation is not good. And about notation, compare APe = APe{APg:TvL} with A=A(g, l). The first one is very hard to understand, the second notation is very clear. (Hint, hint :) Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Oleg,
the new editor User:MathStatWoman did a cut-and-paste move from shatter to shattering, so shattering needs to be deleted to have a place to move shatter to. I put a speedy tag on it even though technically I don't think there's really a category for this; it's just a common-sense thing. If you want to be formal about it, maybe you could ask MathStatWoman to request its deletion and then delete it by author request. -- Trovatore 20:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for welcoming me and for your help! I shall work more on shattering -- I promise to make it a good article, with the help of you & other experts, to edit some articles for accuracy, to write some bios, and then begin an article on empirical processes, soon -- but it is the weekend, have to do shopping and other real-life stuff; then it is hoiday season for everyone I know -- Christmas, hanukah, kwaanzaa. Aaah! So shattering will be improved, and other articles introduced, but maybe not until after New Years. I need help on writing math; is it HTML only? LaTeX? -- Best wishes! MathStatWoman 17:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your support! -- Bonaparte talk 20:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Mark. I have a question about this edit you made. In addition to the name of that raion, "Raionul Cimişlia", you added its name in the Moldovan language, you wrote "( Moldovan: R-ul. Cimişlia)". I belive it does not make any sense, as "R-ul. Cimişlia" is just an abbreviation of "Raionul Cimişlia", and not its name in some other language. If you are trying to make a point that Moldovan language is different than Romanian language, that kind of edits, if anything, work against you.
I don't plan to argue with you or with anybody else the issue of Moldovan language, but I belive your edit was not productive. I will keep your talk page on my watchlist for a while, so you can reply here if you would like to comment. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 21:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
In Topic lists, the math categories are listed redundantly both with each individual letter and with the aggregates (e.g. A-C, D-F, etc.). Based on the style and organization other "sets" of categories (e.g. physics), only the aggregates are appropriate. I am blowing through 2-3 these at several cats per minute. Of the 26 letters, I will comment a few. Yes,I am light on comments. In some cases, I will annotate the parent if it seems appropriate. Give me ten more minutes. -- Fplay 00:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Btw, Oleg, what's the reasoning behind not using LaTeX ? I mean it's much easier for me to read $m \in M$ than $m \text{in} M$, plus I'm not sure how good of a notation is "A set A is called", sort of confuses the reader with two A's in a row. I know though that you wanted to be consistent there with the notation, but still the usual letter for metric spaces is $M$ :) PiKappaMu 02:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the one year anniversary of your arrival to wikipedia just passed. Happy anniversary, and glad to have you here! - lethe talk 21:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems to be reflexive; I insert line breaks without even noticing. I often (but apparently not always) catch them when I preview... Randall Holmes 01:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. I'll remember it when i make more contributions.
About the article of the Simson line, there was a mistake in that sentence, i make the correction, i think it should be clear what it says now.
Excuse me for my English.
Thanks, again.
Crisófilax 04:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
(first two posts were originally at the Village Pump)
I've seen the requests for bots on the community portal and would like to help. I'm pretty handy with Perl, which I understand isn't the ideal language for bots, but it's what I know. Are there any guides or tips out there for would-be bot coders? Or perhaps examples of bots written in Perl that I could crib from? Thanks. | Klaw ¡digame! 05:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. I'll have a look at the Mediawiki module. You mentioned six dependencies - what are they? Are they other modules that I might already have? | Klaw ¡digame! 16:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Keithlaw. Here are some tips, but they will apply to Linux but not to Windows. In the latter case you would need to do something similar I guess.
Part 1. You need to go to CPAN, search for the module WWW::Mediawiki::Client, download it, and install it. See how to install modules at http://www.cpan.org/modules/INSTALL.html
Note that if you are not root, you will need to create a directory fist where you will want to install those modules, say
/home/me/myperl
Then, when you run the perl Makefile.PL step for each module, you need to be more specific, running it as
perl Makefile.PL lib=/home/me/myperl -I/home/me/myperl PREFIX=/home/me/myperl
Part 2. Unfortunately, as soon as you run this command for the WWW::Mediawiki::Client module, perl will complain about missing modules. Here is the message I get
Warning: prerequisite Exception::Class 0 not found. Warning: prerequisite HTTP::Message 1.56 not found. We have 1.42. Warning: prerequisite HTTP::Request::Common 1.26 not found. We have 1.22. Warning: prerequisite Test::Differences 0 not found. Warning: prerequisite URI 1.31 not found. We have 1.30. Warning: prerequisite VCS::Lite 0 not found. Warning: prerequisite XML::LibXML 0 not found. Writing Makefile for WWW::Mediawiki::Client
Then you interrupt whatever you are doing, patiently go to CPAN again, download the offending module, and install it in exactly the same way. Some of those modules may need other modules. So, overall you may end up installing as many as 10 of them (I remembered six, but I was using an older version of this module). That is the real pain in the ass and the reason people prefer the Python framework (but again, Python sucks at actual text processing).
Part 3. Once you are done installing all those modules, you need to read carefully again the instructions at http://www.cpan.org/modules/INSTALL.html in particular the line about inserting
use lib "/home/me/myperl/lib/site_perl"; or sometimes just use "/home/me/myperl" in each of your perl bots.
Also read the documentation of the WWW::Mediawiki::Client module, at the place where you download it.
The lines
$mvs->do_update($filename);
$mvs->do_commit($filename, $message);
are the most important, the first one downloads a wiki file, and the second one uploads it back to wikipedia.
Be prepared to spend several good hours on all that. Good luck. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 17:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I dit not notice the edit summary at the bottom, I will try to make a little summary of the changes whenever I make one. I wanted to correct some things I have put in the finite differences article but it seems you have already fixed it (and vastly expanded it), thanks also for that.
Oleg, the correlation function article is overly mathematized =) Where can I add the part about "Correlation function in statistical physics" so that it doesn't disturb the current structure too much ? :) -- PiKappaMu 17:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear Oleg,
The system informs me that the New Foundations article is reaching the limits of size for articles. I was thinking of writing about mathematical constructions in New Foundations; should I perhaps start writing another article (something like "Implementing mathematics in New Foundations"?) Or am I OK continuing to expand the current article? Randall Holmes 20:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello, Oleg
I have just started my involvement with Wikipedia (about 2 weeks ago or less) and any advice is highly appreciated. I was unaware of the role of "Edit summary". Now I am.
I have added some links (e.g. "vector", "William Gilbert," "sundial" and "lightning"), also an article on the polar aurora (there is a story here). I do not always use bold face in links, nor do I always put my contribution at the head of the list. It depends: I look at other links and then decide. The basic rule is "what helps the user best?" Sometimes, a lot of good and general material is available, and all I can do is supplement it.
However, it usually helps the user to have an overview, a description which can serve as a useful introduction. If I cannot find any link listed that fulfils the role better, I put my link on top and bold-face it. I also describe in a few words what it provides.
If you are willing, I would like you to check me out on this. I am a retired physicst and have spent years creating collections of sites which I think users appreciate. I won't put them on Wikipedia--where others can change them beyond my control--but I can link to them. Tell me if my links meet the above criteria!
One of my collections is about the Earth's magnetosphere, and I am currently writing a Wikipedia entry for it (the one which was there is pretty shallow--and I already convinced someone to remove a Velikovsky claim he inserted there). To see more of my stuff, go to
http://www.phy6.org/prospect.htm
Please tell me more about yourself! I am looking for volunteer Russian translators (there exists a translation of the above page, but no more:
http://www.phy6.org/Vadim.htm )
(I tried to send this before but it looked horrible, then I tried to come back and correct it, and could not, the machine said the talk file was too big. I also put this reply on my own file. Please tell me if you get it.)
David P. Stern
Greenbelt, Maryland, USA
http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Sstern.htm
Sorry about the Math portal thing. The individual pieces/templates/whatever did not seem to merit the same care as full articles do. Anyway, I got me review and resolve the diffrence and Portal:Mathematics now uses the same template as the other Top 8. That is what I really wanted. It was not until I reformatted the template invocations, one param per line, could I really make sense of it. Now that it is a little more clear, I am inclined to leave it as it. If you think that we would benefit from even greater uniformity, feel free to do the moves. My point is: now that there is one-param-per-line, it is fairly easy to see the diffs in the history if you go ahead regularize the eight corresponding file paths (or page or aritle names, or whatever you want to call them).
Also, I am not saying that all must use the Portal template. I do think that those who can make the concssions of style and vareity will allow for slightly easier collaboration. -- Fplay 22:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi there
I've just recently noticed that you reverted Jordan block back to the Jordan normal form. May I ask what was your motivation behind the redirect and why was it done so without being subjected to public scrutiny?
Thanks in advance -- Mecanismo | Talk 01:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I added some examples at Simple group. I would like to ask you to comment at Talk:Simple group and see if more needs to be done. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 16:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello Oleg,
You have recently reverted an edit I made in the article "Square Root", concerning the value of . I wanted to discuss this matter a little. I apologize for making a deal out of such a trivial matter, but this is important to me in resolving a dispute I have had recently.
While it is clear that the final conclusion of my comment () has appeared already, it still serves as a demonstration as to why this is true. Furthermore, and more importantly, it emphasizes the important fact that is not .
While this may sound trivial, it is surprising that many people, some of which considering themselves proffesionals, do not realize it. Even trying to explain this simple fact leads to a barrier of misunderstanding and prejudice.
This is why I believe this point should be stated in the most explicit way possible, having led me to make the edit.
I will be grateful if you let me know what you think, and if possible, help me edit the article in a way that clarifies this issue while not appearing redundant.
Thanks,
-- Meni Rosenfeld 17:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for everything. -- Meni Rosenfeld 19:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Oleg, I went have took out the PortalPage template from the Math portal. Customize to your heart's content and please leave the template alone. It is designed for less-demanding editors who just want to fit in. BTW: Philosophy has taken advantage of customization to good effect. Take a look. -- Fplay 19:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, I've just created my first article, viz. differential entropy, and would very much like it if you gave it a quick read-over and checked it for any errors I may have comitted. I come to you as I do not really know any other math editors, and value the input of an experienced editor such as yourself. Thanks, and I hope it's not too much of a bother. toad ( t) 23:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Just trying to keep out of your way, is all. To give everybody what they want. Go for it! 01:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Oleg for your comments on Wronskian - and your suggestion that I sign up - I was 58.160.212.113 but now I'm free! Also dig your stuff on optimization - keep up the good work. Cheers, Ben Spinozoan 02:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, I will start to add summaries. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Robertetaylor ( talk • contribs)
Has anyone in America actually seen the Modulus Fantastic Four villain yet, or is it just us Brits? —the preceding unsigned comment is by Robertetaylor ( talk • contribs)
In User:Mathbot, the sentence "there is is no need for example to spellcheck the math formulas" appears, where the word "is" is obviously duplicated, and one instance should be removed.
Generally, would it be okay for me to edit such errors in personal pages when I encounter them?
-- Meni Rosenfeld 13:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the editing help and cleaning up my use of the markup language...it doesn't seem to be quite TEX or LATEX to me, but I might be missing something. My article on shattering... I have been working on adding to it and improving it, but the output doesn't look pretty.
Also, a Wikepedia contributer suggested that I join the Mathematics Project. Sorry to admit my ignorance, but how do I do that? I went to the link, but could not determine how I add my user name to the list.
Sorry for typing at the top of a page instead of the bottom.
But I noticed that some pages instruct one to "put new messages at the top". And also that the Wikpedia rules are not really rules but suggestions. So I need time to learn...
Thanks for the help to me while I am a newcomer...and I am still a newcomer; there is so much I do not know about the Wikipedia world. MathStatWoman 18:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry! I was just trying to help!
It would definitely be nice if Wikipedia could find a mathmetican with extensive skills in numerical methods to post a few algorithms. Specifically Mullers method, and the Secant method.
Thanks for keeping Wikipedia relevant and up-2-date! I appreciate the service! --anon
Just wanted to let you know that I asked your question from User talk:Arabani#Question about redirects on the Village Pump (Policy) page. There does not seem to be a consensus on the issue, there are arguments for both points of view, but it basically comes down to "Use common sense, and do what seems best at the time".
Oh yes, go Bears, err... Bruins. ;) -- Falcorian 18:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Oleg -
thanks for your mail! Nice to see, that some work was noticed by someone...
Well, I won't argue for the layout of articles, I think wikipedia is a great deal and good enough as it is. But... a little bit it stitches me with the relocation of the pascal-matrix... You see, it has the character of a introducing-card (would you say so in english?), more than an "important" property. In a list of important properties I think it is not needed for an encyclopedia. It has more the character of a gimmick, pleasant, amazing, and with a styleful shortness and understatement I think the best place would be in fact at the introduction, saying "hello,look here"... and then proceed to the more general and important things.
Positioned at this place I'd rather feel to retract it, but, well, I'll try to get used to it next days ;-)
And generally: it is nice to get welcomed in the way of your mail. Thanks again!
Gotti -- Gotti 18:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Well -
thanks for your input! After considering a bit, I still think, that a property like that, put up into a simple,single point, would be appropriate at the introduction. But - according to the wikipedia rules about original work I come tending to the opinion, it would be better to retract and to try to get it into the printed version first and make it common this way.
Hmm.
Styling an encyclopedia is not so easy, I learn by this ...
Gotti -- Gotti 20:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Ahh - Meni and Oleg, also I had to say thanks for your hints; I'll try to follow them.
And I just put some things together to introduce myself a bit
Druseltal2005 - Gottfried Helms
-- Gotti 22:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Oleg --
If I wanted to temporarily freeze a page so that I can do some tedious notation replacements without worrying about other people making changes in the meantime, how do I arrange to get the freeze put in place? And how long does a temporary freeze usually last? FYI, the page is Discrete Fourier transform, and there is a general consensus behind some simple notation substitutions. Please let me know. Thanks.
Thank you for taking the time to write to me. I appreciate your suggestion and will follow it. As you might have noticed, I am just beginning to learn the etiquette necessary for being a proper "comensal" in this place. Can I ask you for a favor? Do you know how to add hit counters to articles? We want to add one to the Leibniz page.
Best Regards
Dr. Gabriel Gojon 17:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello, Oleg
Thanks for your help in the past, but I am still learning about Wiki.
Right now I am writing an article about the magnetosphere of Earth. It will be very long and maybe I will divide it into "Magnetosphere' and "Magnetospheric physics." I am not sure.
With a long article, the question of references arises. You do not want to send all users to the beginning of the article, if the part you want to point out is deep inside. You do not want the user to start a long search.
Does Wikipedia have anchors, the way HTML does, something like <A name='substorm'> ? If so, how do you place them, and how do you use them in links inside Wikipedia, or for outside users?
Also, is it OK to indent paragraphs for better appearance, like this one?
Happy New Year
David Stern http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Sstern.htm
Hi. I am not sure I understand your at that article. What is an ideal in that context? It cannot be an ideal (ring theory), can it? Anyway, I would really appreciate it if you would revisit that article, and make links to the relevant concepts in your contribution, and maybe making it more clear. Thanks a lot, Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 02:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
i'm not sure about it :-) —the preceding unsigned comment is by Unixer ( talk • contribs)
here is the PDF file: http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~yakov/Geometry/5.pdf —the preceding unsigned comment is by Unixer ( talk • contribs)
I read that. OK, what you wrote is not right away wrong, but it is not helpful as there is no description of the assumptions involved, what kind of ideals are that, in what ring, etc. Maybe your contribution could be fixed, but would require a careful job by a person who knows all that stuff. The simplest thing to do would be just to remove your contribution, which I will do now. I would suggest that in the future when you contribute you be familiar enough with the topic at hand to know that what you are writing is in the right place and correct. That because it seems that when people complain about Wikipedia, they don't mind so much when information is missing, rather when information is incorrect. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The reader is not blind, but is trusting, perhaps, and when the "Examples" section ends, they may believe that there are no more resources with examples. Can I add my link inside the examples section since it is all example problems? - Tbsmith
Do you really think all those examples aren't relevant to path integration? How so? I don't understand how it's not relevant. http://www.exampleproblems.com/wiki/index.php/Complex_Variables#Complex_Integrals
Yes it's self promotion, but so what? The link is extremely useful to anyone in graduate school that's learning how to compute these integrals.
- Tbsmith
I appreciate the objectivity of your edit, but take a look at the history of that entry and the IPs editing it. Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with a user who does this ? -- TrinityC 21:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Oleg. Do you know offhand if there's a way for me to modify my username? I originally signed up with this one, which is an alias, but in retrospect I would rather use my real name. Thanks. -- Adfgvx 00:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I was excited when the yellow bar appeared atop my page, thinking perhaps it was a late "Merry Christmas" or an early "Happy New year" — only to discover it was a boring heading "fix". Oh well I guess I should be thankful (even tho it isn't Thanksgiving) for whatever care is shown for my talk page. And since I'm here, happy whatever holidays a heathen like you celebrates ;-) Paul August ☎ 16:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for unblocking me. Any clue why I was Indefinitely Blocked by "209.67.210.206" Agerard 17:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Rick. You have been doing good work and you did talk at talk:mathematics as I asked you.
As such, I have no right to ask you to slow down when you make huge changes to math article, it is your right as editor, and I may do the same.
So let me put it as a favor. You basically rewrote function (mathematics) and did a huge change at polynomial. OK, you can do that. However, if I were you, and knowing that a lot of other people watch those articles, and that a lot of work went into that before you, so if I were you, I would be slower and more cautioous.
The reason is the following. It will take me a lot of time now to go through all the changes you made at polynomial, and see what I like, what I don't. I had a vision for that article, I knew it very well, and now it is all changed.
OK, I don't know how to say it. Let me try that way. There is no rush. You could have changed just a paragraph or two today, waited for comments, inquired on the talk page. Again, you don't have to do that, this is not the mathematics article, but again, it is easier on others that way.
It is not the end of the world, you could write a bit today , a bit tomorrow, etc. This is the strategy I employ, and very suscessfully. So think of it as a piece of advice, no more.
You can reply here if you have comments. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 01:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I would like to echo Oleg's comments above. In particular I would like to discuss somewhere my concerns about the rewrite of function (mathematics) (my comment at talk:function (mathematics) has generated no response.) The problem as I see is that while I like a lot of what Rick has done there, I think the article is now too didactic, that it reads more like a high school text book than an encyclopedia article. As this is a question of proper encyclopedic style, I would like to work this out before Rick replicates this style elsewhere. Paul August ☎ 17:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Could you protect Acharya S? There is a guy editing it from a number of IPs, getting himself into worse and worse trouble because he has lost his cool while under a short 3RR ban. He is emailing me, but seems too obsessed to stop. Charles Matthews 19:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
My thanks. Hope you are having a good New Year's Eve. Charles Matthews 19:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi. About "Christianity is a dying fad", I have never said anything of the sort. This is one voter who it's useless to argue against so I did not wish to respond to him/her. I work on Christianity and Islam articles a lot aside from the other articles I edit and also revert vandalism and POV on those articles. So it really isn't useful for me to argue with someone who just took one look at one of my contribs and made a conclusion. Maybe this helps to understand the situation. :) Thanks Oleg. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Anonym, just a suggestion. It is not a good idea to delete text from other talk pages or even your talk page. If the talk page gets too big, you can just archive it. I believe that's the best. Thanks. You can reply here if you have comments. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 00:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
All the best for 2006. Paul August ☎ 06:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Gateman1997, your decision to start an RfA for Ed Poor without asking him first, and without posting it on the main RfA page, was not a good idea I believe. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 01:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg - your input on the scalar (physics) talk page would be welcome. I am having a discussion with another editor and the more opinions the better. PAR 16:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Mathbot for adding my edit summary use. ;) -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 04:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it should add edit summary stats after prior comments, if any. In one of the rfas, it has added the stats before a pre-existing comment by me - it makes reading the page difficult. Or you may want to create a separate sub-section? btw, does it look at edit summary usage in Template space? If not, it may be a good idea to say that it looks at edit summaries in the article namespace. Also, you may want it to generate a table (a 2X2 matrix) to show edit summary usage for major and minor edits on one axis and for Article and other namespaces on the other axes generating four boxes. Also, implicit assumption is that the user would have made 500 edits to article namespace. Pl. feel free to disregard ;) any of these suggestions. -- Gurubrahma 09:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I´m sorry, mainly i just done little and quick modif and i forgot to put summary >.<.
PS: i din´t know of which article youb are talking about, but i forgot often time.
As a courtesy for other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to
sign your
talk page and
user talk page posts. To do so simply add four
tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added along with a
timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info read
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you.
Thanks for starting the article on weak solutions. I edited it slightly to indicate that there are other definitions of weak solution besides the distributional one. Also I added Evans' book as a reference, but he doesn't talk about n-th order equations so the article needs a reference for that material (Hörmander?). Brian Tvedt 02:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg.
I made a minor change to root-finding algorithm and you reverted it. Thank you for your interest. It is of cause not very important whether a free variable is called x or p. If there is only one free variable, x is the conventional choice. If there are four free variables, p q r s seems natural. We need four variables, but not five, so p q r s is sufficient and x is unnecessary. Happy new year to you and thanks for our fine discussions. Bo Jacoby 07:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Somewhere I must change from one variable x to four variables p,q,r,s. When I claim that the two observations are the clue to the method, then I had better let the formulas of the observations look like the formulas of the method as closely as possible. The method uses no x. That's why. I'm sure you understand it right. You are the reader - if it is confusing to you, then it is confusing. Perhaps I must be more explicite:
If , then the substitution approximates
, and if , then the substitution
In both cases the new value of the variable p will approximate the root P:
Am I clear ?
Bo Jacoby 13:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by fixed point iteration, or why it must be much slower than Newton's method. For pencil-and-paper computation with 2 decimals of a real root to an equation of degree max 3, I prefer Newton's method. Even if Newton himself, of cause, didn't use neither complex numbers nor PC nor pocket calculator, his method can be programmed to use complex numbers and find one of the roots of a polynomial, but which one depend on the initial guess, which is not desirable. So for the PC I prefer the present method which finds all the roots reliably. Alas I know of no nice geometrical explanation like the well-known drawing of the intersection between a tangent to the curve, and the x-axis. The lack of pictures makes complex numbers hard to grasp for many people. Bo Jacoby 09:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello Oleg - since you listed statistics as an interest in your user talk, I was hoping you could lend your expertise to the current Mathematics Collaboration of the Week: Multiple Comparisons. Obviously it's a interesting and important topic. We are also in the midst of a discussion as to the distinction between multiple comparisons and multiple testing. Your thoughts would be much appreciated. Let's get a math article up on the front page! Thanks for any help. Debivort 10:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Sa ai un an bun. De la Bonaparte talk 17:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could do me a favor and find my edit summary usage using Mathbot. If you're too busy, just forget about it. Thanks. Gflores Talk 01:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Edit summary usage: 79% for major edits and 81% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.
I have redirected Mathbot's talk page to this page as that is how the bot's user page requests feedback/talk be given. -- Nick Catalano ( Talk) 07:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Salut Oleg, poti sa-mi spui si mie procentajul cu MathBOt? Bonaparte talk 12:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Edit summary usage: 54% for major edits and 8% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 86 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.
You may find the debate at WP:VPT#Rollback_text_changed of interest. My experience is that a significant number of admins do, on rare occasions, use rollback on non-vandalism edits. I've never seen any action be taken. It is the appropriateness of the edit rather than the button used to make it which is regarded as the important issue. David | Talk 19:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thanks, I just tossed this stuff up from memory as practice review for a stats exam. I tend to only add to Wikipedia now and then, in a pretty random fashion. I appreciate you folks who keep it cleaned up to spec, I try not to leave things too ugly. Phil 05:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
In your opposition to my candidacy for ArbCom, you wrote "I belive Kelly did a very good job as an arbitrator so far, but her behavior on the infoboxes debacle and subsequenent comments on her talk page were not appropriate for somebody wielding so much power on Wikipedia." Could you identify what behaviour or comments lead you to that conclusion? And just how much power do you think I wield on Wikipedia, and how do you think that my not being on ArbCom will decrease that (from my standpoint, if anything, it'll increase it). Kelly Martin ( talk) 20:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
When Mathbot is calculating edit summary information that is being posted on RfA's does it count automatic edit summaries from section texts as being an edit with a summary or without, assuming nothing else is added between the /*'s ? xaosflux Talk/ CVU 03:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes... but I'm also in the process of looking for employment too. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
i was taught an isomorphism is a 1:1 and onto mapping at uc berkeley. you say it's not. thanks for your insight and deletions. i'll have to do some research and get back to you. thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bryanmcdonald ( talk • contribs) .
From a category theory point of view, an isomorphism is any "invertible" morphism. That is a morphism f from A to B is an isomorphism provided that there exists a morphism g from B to A such that g o f = idA and f o g = idB. So what an isomorphism is depends on what category you are in. In the category of sets and functions (SET) the isomorphisms are the bijections (1:1 and onto). In the category of topological spaces and continuous functions (Top) they are the homeomorphisms. In any concrete category where the morphisms are functions, then every isomorphism will be bijective. The converse "that every bijective morphism is an isomorphism" is true for some other categories besides SET, for example the category of vector spaces and linear transformations, and the category of groups and group homomorphisms, but is not true, for example, in TOP. Paul August ☎ 19:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok I've now looked at isomorphism and Bryanmcdonald's edit, and it was certainly appropriate to revert that edit. However I wanted Bryan to understand that, in the context of "sets", what he said about bijections being isomophisms was correct, while in other contexts, it was not. (I figured you understood all this already). By the way, I think that that article needs to be rewritten, particularly the formal definition. Paul August ☎ 23:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I've just seen that you rv-ed my motivation sentence from the intro at Complex number. So I picked up the glove :-D and started a discussion at Talk:Complex number. If you have the time I'm sure that your opinion will be helpful AdamSmithee 08:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
... in the same line as text (now a discussion on whether Unicode characters should be specified in the HTML by use of character references or without character references)
Hi Oleg, you left a note on my talk page on December 23rd which I've only just noticed. Thanks for the info, I had been planning to do more research into the Wiki policies.
But you reverted a change I made to the
Cardinal number article. Now, the aleph symbols appear as squares just like any other unrecognized non-ASCII character. The problem is that the current representation is not actually HTML.
Here are a number of different aleph representations I have found on wikipedia:
I recommend א It's HTML and it works on the standard Windows XP + Internet Explorer computer I'm using no. I'll test these on my home Computer (Linux + Firefox) later tonight.
To write HTML, even when representing funny characters like aleph and infinity, you should use only ASCII characters (i.e. standard US/British English letters and punctuation). You should not simply copy and paste the symbol from an article into the Edit box. This means ∞ for ∞ (infinity) and א for א (aleph).
Thanks for your time. I hope the above makes sense. Aaron McDaid 11:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Entered into the edit box | Example | Notes |
---|---|---|
ℵ or ℵ or ℵ | ℵ | Unicode, it's called called "alef symbol". This particular character may or may not display for you. Aaron finds that it works in Firefox on Linux, but not IE. This is the current preferred method, using the last of the 3 input strings on the left: ℵ . Each of these 3 input strings should give the same result. |
א or א or א | א | Unicode, it's called "Hebrew letter alef". This particular character may or may not display for you. Aaron finds that it works in IE, but not Firefox on Linux. |
<math>\aleph</math> | Tex. More portable because Wikipedia will usually render it as a PNG image (depending on your Wikipedia preferences, it might display one of the above two instead). Will probably look different (larger) from the other examples in this table. It can look out of place amongst the surrounding text. |
As the guy who originally changed that article from png to unicode, let me just say that I (and I think everyone) is aware that there are problems with the solution. I agree with Oleg. Let's just hope that unicode and mathml become widespread very soon. - lethe talk 07:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Mathbot has calculated my edit summary usage in
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JzG but I recently changed my account from
User:Just zis Guy, you know? - can you run a count on the other one manually please? -
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
RfA!
12:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I note your comment at
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JzG. Ever one to learn from my mistakes I have now added the "force edit summary" script to my monobook.js and am resolved to mend my unsummarising ways :-) Thanks for the input. -
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
RfA!
12:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Salut Oleg,
It means "Tag, you're falling under the shadow of Bonaparte. But I anticipated that."
Cheers. -- Node 01:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I noticed what appears to be a error in the Newton's Method page. As you seem to be the de-facto editor there, if you have some spare time maybe take a look at the discussion page there and see what you think. 68.174.117.113 02:49, 11 January 2006
Hi Oleg. FYI: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anittas#More offensive remarks by Anittas ← Humus sapiens ←ну? 07:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course they are; I have no idea why I did that. Perhaps to create incentive for myself to get rid of them by filling them in :-) Fredrik | t c 09:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
So, first you are strong-arming me to include all articles listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity and now I discover that this tin filled with oil and grease is making a bloody mess of that page. I guess that's quite an achievement, but nevertheless, we are not amused.
Seriously, in today's update, the pages Assignment problem and Zariski topology were added and the pages Baire function and Isometries in physics were removed, all for reasons that my poor human brain cannot fathom. What's going on? -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 18:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello again. I wrote a new tool that might be even more useful to RFA than my edit counter was (and to some extent pays penance for any editcountitis I might have encouraged). It's a hierarchical view of a user's history: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/contribution_tree
I'm just announcing it now though, so I don't know how well people will receive it (or how much it overlaps with other tools), but if you think it's particularly useful for RFA, you could add it to (or replace) the link you're posting to my edit counter on the RFA's. And of course if you have any comments/suggestions, I'd like to hear any feedback. -- Interiot 20:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I know this may be spam, but I'm looking for an answer and I don't yet know how to talk to someone else. Is this a new Pokémon? http://pkmn.net/forums/index.php?topic=39800.0 Scroll down, you'll see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenaisis ( talk • contribs)
Meh, it's okay, I was proved wrong anyway :( from Jenaisis
Hi Oleg, please forgive my coming by to discuss your vote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev. I just wanted to share with you that while I agree with you that edit summaries are very important, their presence or absence may make a difference between a good and a better editor. But note, that an excellent editor and a good admin, while often found in one and the same person, are actually two rather different things. We all know what a good editor means and there is no need to elaborate.
But good admin is first of all commitment and the highest standards of personal ethics (not to use the tools you are empowered with inappropriately). Alex expressed the highest virtues in both the commitment and personal ethics, especially in view of an exemplary decency of how he handled certain individuals that committed to derail his Adminship and even dared to use sockpuppets for that. Besides, since Alex actually checks all new articles created at wiki (an amazing commitment) the admin tools will come very handy since he is willing to do a cleaning part of admin duties, unlike most of our admins who, usually, just remain regular editors.
There is no doubt that have been pointed out so clearly at this nomination about the summaries, there is no doubt that he will not be forgetting about them anyway after this discussion and votes.
By no means I intend to pressure you and should you choose to keep your vote unchanged, I will not be contacting you with further pressure regarding this issue. -- Irpen 01:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
(The Marvel character, not the maths thingy.)
Does anyone think it'll come back?
I would like to express my thanks to all the good people who spent their valuable time time and effort working on my (failed) RfA voting. I agree with your judgement and it is fair abakharev abakharev 13:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for the corrections. Heraclesprogeny 01:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. But I would think it a greater problem if it was the habit of some to revert an edit based only upon a superficial look at the comment line (via recent changes or whatever). I would think that reverts were or should be made with more literacy, no? - MagnaMopus 20:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I was reffered to you - can you help me with this project? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Should be fixed now. Now, when are you going to come once and say "thank you", instead of just mentioning bugs all the time? :) Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 22:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for creating and maintaining the mathbot! |
Having the bot going after redirects is hard. I don't know how to do that. So far it just looks in categories, no more no less. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 06:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello. The edit summaries being left by Mathbot on WP:RFA point to a non-existent section of the talk page:
-- TheParanoidOne 10:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
hi ,The Current opening defenition of Integral is very not scientific and very not Mathematical. Yet ,the need to appeal to layman term's in understandable ,that is why I kept this opening stsement Yet still ,an integral is not a volume etc' ,rather it can be used to calcualte it ,depepnding on the function's meaning. - Procrastinator talk2me 00:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey Oleg ,hope that after this alteration the text constitute a decipherable syntax for your OCR algorithms.
Please rectify if needed at Talk:Integral-- Procrastinator@ talk2me 16:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
What the eff? Why am I not allowed to blank my own user talk page? And don't give me any of that "Oh, you're banned" garbage. I would sincerely appreciate a real answer.
-sfmil
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled " Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.
When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.
– Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 23:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Contrary to popular perceptions, I was only in favour of Kelly's intention. I disagreed with her method. Perhaps the reason that I appeared strongly in support of her was that I was in strong opposition to the behaviour against her. Just to note: this isn't asking you to change your vote; I am just keen to avoid any ambiguities or misunderstandings. Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 12:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
(Sorry for recent edits, my keyboard is having a disagreement with me)
Hello Oleg,
Thanks, -- Meni Rosenfeld 14:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello Oleg, I have just created an article about formal calculation. It is in a rather bad shape right now due to lack of good sources on it (and due to this being my first significant edit), but I'd be delighted if you check it out as well as the accompanying discussion. -- Meni Rosenfeld 16:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, a while ago you made some comments about the presence of bible-verse articles, and/or source texts of the bible, and you may therefore be interested in related new discussions:
-- Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 18:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
As you might have noticed, I change my script updating Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity to ignore your bots contributions to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics and look in the categories instead. Comments are welcome. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 21:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the input and the help. Cheers, MathStatWoman 13:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, I had a look at the LMS adaptive filter site. This site needs a make over: First, there is no background information on the adaptive filter topic. Second, the update equations are not derived. Third, there are several inconsistencies in the update equations. Last, there are no external references.
I have a bit of time and if nobody else is working on that topic I could give it a try.
Greetings, Oliver Faust
I use the same style for new admins, bcrats, and welcoming users, so I would need to change those, but I don't feel strongly in the least, so I will get around to it. The templates are subst'd, however, so all the uses of them can't be changed, however. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 05:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Done...new colors are blue, white, and orange (as opposed to black, yellow, and white). See User:Ilyanep/Admin — Ilyan e p (Talk) 05:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg! I'm thinking of starting an RfArbCom against Anittas for the recent personal attacks he made, which came after the second RfC - see
here. Previously, he's also made a number of personal attacks against you, particularly anti-Russian statements. What do you think about this request for arbitration?
Ronline
✉
05:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ronline. Yesterday I had to speedy go to bed, and that's the reason I postponed the matter for today. Now, after reading your evidence, and the recent events at User talk:Anittas and WP:AN/I#Displaying another's image on one's user page, and taking into account that there were already two RfC's against Anittas, I believe an RfArb is all we have left on the table. If you start one, I would like to be a party to it.
Anittas, this is not a celebration. Sadly, you never quite learned the rules of polite engagement on Wikipedia, and not for lack of time or lack of attempt from others. I would think that a reasonable solution from the ArbCom would be to request that you be blocked for a certain period each time you commit a personal attack. But we will see if Ronline goes forward with the ArbCom request. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 02:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Oleg. We have been working on a new editcounter to be a backup for when the toolserver is down or has a huge replication lag, like it had recently. However, I've kept running into trouble while trying to parse edit summaries, specifically, when those edit summaries have automatic section-edit summaries that have been malformed by a user editing over them. An example of such malformed diff is here. My question is, how does Mathbot process edit summaries? Flcelloguy told me that you could know how to fix that problem. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 06:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
# strip the autocomment (the part between /* and */, regardless if an user modified that or not s/\<span\s+class=[\"\']autocomment[\"\']\>.*?\<\/span\>//g; # decide if the current edit is minor or not if (/\<span\s+class=[\"\']minor[\"\']\>m\<\/span\>/) { $minor=1; } else { $minor=0; } # see if the user put an edit summary or not # (if the edit summary has parentheses inside of it, the script will be confused and not count that) # I will fix that bug soon, it is not too hard if (/\<span\s+class=[\"\']comment[\"\']\>\s*\(\s*(.*?)\s*\)\s*\<\/span\>/) { $comment=$1; } else { $comment=""; }
Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 17:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry that my English is not good. In recent day, I found that some of infomation in wiki are useful for me However, some administrator stated that. Stop nonsense vandalism in wiki For me, i just pressed the search button in wiki.And search some useful infos for me I have not changed any things or delete anythings in wiki. Oleg, What can i do in wiki?? Nana21 17:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know whether the ISP use a variable IP address. It is very strange that I won't read any things about maths. But, you sent me a meassage that i have deleted a page about maths.I would like to ask about the wiki translation. I am the wiki user in Chinese wiki. I would like to translate some of articles from the chinese wiki. Can i do this? Or it require permission? Nana21 17:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
What does it mean when a user has a name but it is red-linked? There is a user with these qualities who is being something of a nuisance on Peano axioms. Randall Holmes 18:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The ISP of this individual seems to be Special:Contributions/88.104.48.8 (also see Special:Contributions/Evildictaitor); his contribution list looks like (probably well-intentioned) vandalism. Randall Holmes 22:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, I was just wondering if I could base one of my fictional characters on you? He's a maths wiz, kind of like yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenaisis ( talk • contribs)
Hi Jorge. I read some of your comments at talk:function (mathematics). I did not research well-enough the issue to give a qualified opinion about the discussion there, but I have a general remark however.
The rule of thumb is that one should not try to make things too complicated, at least in the openning paragraphs. More precisely, the introduction must be as acesssible as possible (without being silly, of course). More complicated content can go down the text. Some more information is avaiable at Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible.
Again, this is a rule of thumb. I don't quite know what position to take on function (mathematics), but I thought I would give you my general perspective on things. You can reply here if you have any comments. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 02:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rich. I have a strong suspicion that in this edit at the above-named article you made a mistake by inserting the planetmath template and putting it in the combinatorics category. I removed those for now, but please let me know if I was wrong. You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 01:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
My last post wasn't really about Pokemon and the one before that was confirmed to be an item, not a Pokemon, but next month a new Pokemon will be shown to tie in with the 9th movie, so I'll try and get a picture of it if someone could tell me how you post pictures on Wikipedia. I'm also now one of the main editors of the Pokemon articles, if that interests you :) So like you're the 'Wiki maths god' that someone stated, I'm the 'Wiki Pokemon god'.
From Jenaisis, 18th Jan 2006
I'm thinking about requesting adminship, and have written a draft of my request. I would appreciate it if you would proofread it for me, and let me know what you think. -- Go for it! 23:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, both of you. You've given me a lot to think about, and I appreciate it. Cheers, -- Go for it! 01:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
In regards to Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters' rfa, what would his edit summary percentage need to be for you to support him? He's a good guy, but he's had a bad past awhile back, and this would be a fitting ending to a long road back to redemption. Karm a fist 03:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
From sigma algebra:
"In mathematics, a σ-algebra ... over a set X is a family Σ of subsets of X that is closed under countable set operations..."
Is "family" meant here in the sense of family (mathematics), or is it just a loose way of saying "set"? Just curious, and thought you might know. Dbtfz 05:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Jenaisis 13:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Discussion continues at talk:shape
Hi Oleg,
I adjusted the definition on the shapes page.
I changed the definition, because I am interested in comparing shapes. If two shapes are exactly the same, then there is no difference between the definitions. That there is no difference between the shapes after Euclidean transformations are filtered out, is equivalent to there being no difference between all properties invariant to Euclidean transformations.
The difference between the two definitions becomes apparent when comparing two objects which do not have exactly the same shape. It may not be possible to filter out the effects of location, scale and rotation. Methods, such as Procrustes analysis, are based on heuristic algorithms to filter out these transformations. It may be more precise to write that the difference between two shapes is described by the differences between corresponding invariant properties.
I will not pursue the issue. I do not agree, however, with your description of the extra words as 'clumsy', and do not see how such a description helps anybody.
"And I will have to agree with him that the way you have put it was too much of a duplication, and that the article is about a mathematical concept, not a computer science one. So whether there is an algorithm that filters out those properties is irrelevant to this article - in math, you can do things without algorithms (isn't math great?)" Nobody mentioned computer science. The Procrustes algorithm dates to Gower, 1975. It has only recently been used as a mathematical tool in computer science.
Just in case you think algorithms are confined to computer science, I got this from wikipedia: "Al-Khwarizmi, the 9th century Persian astronomer of the Caliph of Baghdad, wrote several important books, on the Hindu-Arabid numerals and on methods for solving equations. The word algorithm is derived from his name, and the word algebra from the title of one of his works, Al-Jabr wa-al-Muqabilah."
With respect to the word 'duplication', is this not an encyclopaedia? There are two definitions in the mathematical literature. Is it not more comprehensive to include both? That my original alteration lacked sufficient clarity is unfortunate, but not necessarily a reason to discount it entirely.
I used a cube because it is easy to visualise. I should have made that more clear. As in Oleg's original definition, two objects have the same shape if one can be transformed to exactly match the other, using only Euclidean transformations. These Euclidean transformations are also called rigid motions, or Euclidean motions, in geometry. The question of equivalence of reflections comes up quite a lot. The definition of shape is sometimes extended to include all orthogonal transformations, plus scaling, i.e., transformations that preserve relative distances and angles (google mathworld, orthogonal transformations for a good definition). Orthogonal transformations include reflection. This implies that the shape of an object is equivalent to the shape of its reflection.
"But are these two really considered different shapes?" This question is not clear to me, I am afraid. I would appreciate it if you would expand a little. Are you asking if the object and its reflection have the same shape? Or, are you asking if the object and its reflection are the same objects? Euclidean transformations involve scaling, rotating and translating. The reflection question is a good question, and there is no perfect answer to it.
Finally, Oleg, if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that shape is clearly defined in $n$-dimensional space by the likes of Kendall and Le, and Goodall. And reflection is discussed.
I admire your enthusiasm in extending Wikipedia. My intention was merely to do the same, by adding the extra knowledge I had about the definition of shape. Your reaction was not appreciated.
"According to one common definition, the shape of an object is all the geometrical information that remains after location, scale and rotational effects are filtered out. This definition implicitly assumes that it is possible to filter these effects out. Another definition is that the shape of an object is all of the geometrical information that is invariant to location, scale and rotation."
The definition used in the first sentence originates, according to Dryden & Mardia, 1998, in a 1977 paper by Kendall, "The Diffusion of Shape". Kendall's 1984 paper started off the whole Procrustes analysis methodology, linked to at the bottom of the shapes page.
I agree that I may be incorrect in concluding that the first definition "implicitly assumes" a filtration method is possible. It would be better, in my updated opinion, if I had said "suggests". I feel that this definition unnecessarily motivates Procrustes analysis, a filtration method, to mathematically analyse differences between shapes.
So, yes, the definitions are mathematically equivalent. They are not, however, equivalent. Both definitions are in common use in modern mathematics. As such, it seems reasonable to me that both definitions should be included in an article in an Encyclopaedia, and the reason that there are two definitions should also be included. This is why I had three sentences; two definitions and a reason.
My alterations may have needed improvement. I do not, however, think it is good practice to just try to wipe them out, and call the words I used clumsy without justification. My last comment may have been somewhat antagonistic, but I am not yet ready to retract it. --anon
may I have the reference for your opening paragraph? The bit about size being dilation, specifically. Regards, anon
Discussion continues at talk:shape
Да ди ши олег ту крези кэ ар фи гини сэ винэ ши алции? Кум ар скимба аста ситуациуния? аму дакэ ому ну штие лимба сау ситуация нуастрэ, кум поате сэ-ши деа ку пэрерия? ну-и корект фрате, ну-и корект. унде маи пуи кэ дакэ вреи сэ вотези требуие сэ аи 25 де контрибуции ла актив. Аста е нормал; аша се прочедиязэ де обичеи пе теме де астия маи песте тот. Дечи чеи каре ну штиу лимба нич ну пот сэ контрибуие. Маи гини дечидем нои аколо ши гата. Салутэри ши нума гини! Ия зи, ну-и аша кэ ну скриу рэу пи малдавияниеште пентру ун ромын? Constantzeanu 01:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DavidHouse "Hi David. Just a tiny remark. Per the math style manual, one should make variables italic. I fixed that at Borel algebra. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)" -- Oops! Must have missed that. Thanks for pointing that out, and thanks for the correction.
What is the quickest way to find all the links that are in both list of rappers and list of hip-hop musicians and remove the repeats from the latter? we're trying to get rid of redundancy, but this seems like it would take forever without a method or program or something. Thanks-- Urthogie 15:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
You are suggesting a big change. As before, I would like some discussion before hand. Say you post this suggestion on both talk:list of hip hop musicians and talk:list of rappers and wait around a week for an answer. Some people might disagree with this split. No rush. :) Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 19:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Its been 3 days without any opposition, so I guess its time to bug you. Need anything done for this to happen? Thanks!-- Urthogie 10:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I copied your new proposal to talk:list of hip hop musicians, and let us see what people have to say. If there is no opposition, I will work on that towards the end of the week. And let us continue the conversation there, I might forget to check this section later as it moves higher and higher in the table of contents. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 17:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Bonaparte is trying to sneak back! -- Ghirla | talk 18:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Apologies. I wasn't thinking straight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AJR 1978 ( talk • contribs) .
Salut Oleg. Sunt cam supărat acum fiind că mă simt tras de ambele părţi după opiniile lor. Când, pe bună dreptate, am început RfC împotriva lui Anittas, au venit alţii şi mi-au spus "Ce mai, dece ai început RfC-ul împotriva lui?". Când l-am blocat pe Mikka, a venit Ghirlandajo şi a zis "Ce mai, dece te coalizezi cu troll-ii?". Acum că îl suport pe Bonaparte în acest caz, vii tu şi îmi spui "Ce mai, dece îl suporţi pe Bonaparte?". Şi după aceea spui că postul meu nu va fi luat în serios! Dacă nu ţi-ai dat seama până acum, eu nu fac interestul nimănui aici - nu-s nici omul lui Anittas sau al lui Bonaparte, nici al lui Node - pe scurt, apăr dreptatea şi celelalte valori în care cred eu aici la Wikipedia. În orice caz - Bonaparte a vorbit frumos cu mine şi cu alţii, fapt care mă determină să cred că el nu este un troll şi că a făcut ce a făcut fiind că nu a fost total înţeles aici la Wikipedia. Pe când Anittas, de exemplu, a fost aproşat de zeci de persoane care i-au spus atât de frumos că ce face nu este corect, lui Bonaparte nu i sa spus în acelaşi fel. El a fost repede blocat, repede i sa dat ultimatum, etc. Din cauza asta, din cauza că se simţea că nu este înţeles, a făcut lucruri care păreau tot mai mult anti-politică. Cred că prin puţină toleranţă şi înţelegere - şi empatie - Bonaparte va face un contributor bun. El nu a făcut, de exemplu, insulte ad hominem repetate în acelaşi fel ca şi Anittas, iar uite că Anittas e cel neblocat şi Bonaparte e cel blocat. Sigur, trebuie discutat mult cu el înainte de a fi readmis, şi posibil ar fi bine să fie "watched" când va veni înapoi, dar altfel eu suport deblocarea sa. Poate că este şi din cauza faptului că eu sunt destul de anti-blocare, cel puţin pe termen lung de peste 24 de ore.
Ronline
✉
07:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
So you are antiblock you say? Ronline, a big problem of Wikipedia is that there are a few (like Bonaparte) who are wasting the time of the many. A few trolls who are a drain of resourses. Even if they may make some good contributions, removing them from Wikipedia will be much more gain than loss.
And don't you follow WP:AN/I? Bonaparte is world-famous. Basically all administrators on Wikipedia know him. And cheating by voting with multiple accounts, that's much worse than anything Anittas ever did. That's a shame to us, Romanians. This kind of people must go. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 18:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thanx,i dont know wat a admin does anyway.but please dont block me.-- Jayanthv86 14:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
--+I withdraw. Hello everybody,thanks for opening my eyes.I am such a loser,I dont even know what a admin does and i have nominated myself.from now on,i will leave edit summaries.I am barely two months old in wiki and i was audacious enough to ask for adminship.Sorry for wasting your time.-- Jayanthv86 15:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder to write edit summaries. I'll try to be a more disciplined Wikipedian. Shoefly 23:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I know this might sound like a minor quibble, but when your bot prints out the edit summary usage of adminship candidates, there is a doubled "and". For example:
"Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits..."
Could you remove the doubled "and"? Thanks. Graham/pianoman87 talk 04:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
hello oleg -- i would appreciate you unblocking the USC Trojans Football page. i have put in a short explanation about the dispute about several of sc's claimed national championships. it is done is a respectful way. there are no nasty comments. it is straight forward. it seems many people (i can only assume sc supporters) want this to be a type of entry that would be approved by the sc p.r. department. as you notice there has never been any challenge of any of the facts i have in this entry. in includes the championships (most of them) which are not disputed. the biggest complaint is that this doesnt belong here. there is also a complaint about my brief explanation about about the national championship process. it is a very short explanation. there is never a complaint when i put factual material that the sc supporter find positive. but lo and behold when i try to put some balance in here (mentioning that TWO of the national championship claims are disputed) they constantly remove it and put in a couple lines. it is like putting in the lyndon johnson section -- "the vietnam war was controversial." THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME EXPLANATION -- this is not a space issue. also -- and i am sorry if i am getting personal here -- one of the main people who has been changing my entries and replacing it with one or two lines glossing over the issue -- is MisfitToys. this gentleman -- if you look at his wikipedia history -- seems to have a great alligence and partisenship to sc. he complains about the unecessary amount of infomation i have included (he says it is too much and doesnt belong there.) PLEASE look at the entry written by MisfitToys about a man by the name of sam barry. sam barry happens to have been an sc athletic pioneer. MisfitToys has TONS of info in his entry about Sam Barry. When it comes to Sam Barry, MisfitToys doesnt seem to have problem with the amount of information. I think it would be fair to say that Sam Barry in the overall scheme of things is far less important to the world sports than USC Trojans Football. This is suppose to be a free and open encyclopedia. I NEVER TRIED TO BLOCK MisfitToys. We have a choice. Do we want an encyclopedia where people who are partisens are allowed to remove items where a balanced view is presented? AGAIN MisfitToys has not found one thing in my entry that is inaccurate. He simply doesnt like it. I dont think it is fair to allow people who clearly are partisens to remove entries and replace them with entries that skirt over controversy. if we can have a VERY LONG entry for sam barry -- i think we can have a few extra paragraphs to explain this issue of the sc national championships. --unsigned
Hi! I see that you have a tool that counts – among other things – users' edit summaries. Is it an open tool, or does it rely on its boss? Thanks. -- Eddi ( Talk) 15:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
First, thanks for moving my Gerhard Hessenberg page - I noticed the capitalization problem too late. I'm in the process of making my first math article (its Plotkin bound). One difficulty I am running into is equation labells. Is there any way to label an equation so that I can refer to it later on? The latex \label{} and then \ref{} don't seem to work in wikipedia and I've been unable to find the answer anywhere. Thanks, -- Pierremenard 17:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Pierremenard 02:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I am having a dispute with Rick Norwood concerning Division by zero. I really don't like where this is going, and I'll be grateful if you give us some feedback. -- Meni Rosenfeld ( talk) 19:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Your bot is doing something odd to my RfA. Could you look into it? — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 12:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thanks for the help! I'll change my preferences. JamieJones talk 12:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Your bot's repeatedly added edit summary counts for RFAs it's already posted in. If this keeps up I might have to temporarily block it, otherwise... NSL E ( T+ C) 13:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I don't mind at all... I just forget. This is how it happens, often: I look at "show preview" to check how the markup looks, and then click on "save page" before I enter an edit summary. I'll try, but I am a bit absentminded... sorry. MathStatWoman 03:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Wow, your talk page is big! I can definitely do edit summaries when I do stuff. Have a good one. That CS Guy 23:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Heya, not sure if you're watching that old section, but I posted up there that another 3 days have gone by without opposition. In addition, I also suggested an idea about redlinks which may be helpful. Thanks so much!-- Urthogie 15:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Oleg,
I would not say that things are looking up for the relation (mathematics) article. The actual situation is that I (and I think Arthur Rubin, though I can't speak for him) are reluctant to start an edit war like the recent one in function (mathematics). But I will start one shortly if Awbrey does not listen to us. Please read the discussion. The definition of relation given in the intro is incorrect and does not agree with the formal definition given subsequently (which is correct for one style). Respectful consideration must be given to the definition which identifies the relation with its graph, which remains the dominant definition of this concept (and which is also simpler and so should be given first). For content rather than style (it is a draft and it needs examples and certainly some rewriting) see my User: Randall Holmes/Sandbox/relation (mathematics), in which both styles of definition are discussed from a neutral point of view. Randall Holmes 17:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Oleg,
I request mediation on relation (mathematics). Jon Awbrey must be stopped, to put it bluntly. Randall Holmes 17:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I apologize for being quite so blunt; I have been getting increasingly upset, and will try to moderate this. Randall Holmes 19:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg. I don't know if you saw my edit summary here from last night. I've been thinking about it, and now I actually think it's not true that a function has to be constant on an atomic set of a measure space. Consider for example the Dirac measure δa(E)=χE(a) for some fixed a. Do you know anything about this? I kind of want it to be true. - lethe talk 20:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought I had a counterexample, but it violated the assumption that you use the Borel sigma-algebra on the reals. It's been a while since I did measure theory; I guess this assumption is so obvious that it needn't be mentioned? -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 13:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Oleg, the Bot seems to still be a little under the weather, as you can see from this edit at RFA. Got your screwdriver handy? Chick Bowen 03:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I patched my script to cry wolf and exit when it repeatedly fails to get information from the server. Hopefully that will avoid the situation as above, when a user was given a 0% edit summary usage, when the actual figure was 100%. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 08:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Seeing all that math above reminded me of something, Oleg. A couple of weeks ago I had an exchange with a new user, since apparently disappeared, about Herzog-Schönheim conjecture, which he had just added. I asked him to provide some context but I guess he never did. Any thoughts, or should I just put an {{ expert}} tag on it? I don't know if any of the stub categories here would work better, too. Thanks. Chick Bowen 04:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi!
I have a question
In latex I would write
The blablabla....
\begin{equation} ax^2+bx+c = 0 \label{eq:quadratic} \end{equation}
According to equation \eqref{eq:quadratic} ....
How can I numerate and make further references to the formulas that are written inside a page?
Thanks,
Diego Torquemada 13:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Enochlau. I have a comment about this edit you made. I believe that was a typical example when one should not use the admin rollback tool, but rather revert the old-fashioned way, and with an edit summary. I believe Mikka's edit was in good faith, the category he put the article in was sound, and everything was OK. Thus, you owe Mikka, and everybody who has that article on the watchlist, an explanation for why you reverted the edit.
That explanation can go on the article talk page, but even better, the most appropriate place is the edit summary. In short, also per the new Wikipedia:Administrator Code of Conduct, I would like to ask you to not use the rollback button when an edit summary is necessary. Also note that Mikka is an old wolf, but people may also take offence at being reverted with the vandal tool, if their edit was in good faith.
Wonder what you think, you can reply here, I will keep your page on my watchlist. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 02:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC) (copied my above post from Enochlau's page who replied on my page instead of his Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 06:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC))
(copied from User talk:Beoknoc) Please stop that. The text written there is much clearer and more accurate than what you provided, and we don't sign our names in articles either. Dysprosia 02:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this is how i talk... if it is, i'll know by your response.
A) i didn't put my name on it. I am not ben cook.
B) no, I feel that what i put is a better summary and is easy to understand. if we could put both, that would be OK (I had done this originaly but someone deleted my thing). you could even have yours first. if you could pass this on to what's his name, that would be great. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beoknoc ( talk • contribs) .
interesting, i find your comments strange and agrivating. as dy--- said, this is an encyclopedia. Look in any encyclopedia and you will find the more complex version and a simpler version for studentsdoing research (my 2 kids use wickipedia for almost every assignment, and they were unable to understand your formula). because of this, i feel that it is nessesary to have both formulas posted. also, no offence meant, but, as my 12 year old would say, "up urs". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beoknoc ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 29 January 2006
Could you keep an eye on I. M. Vinogradov? It seems we have a revert war - I am going to bed. Charles Matthews 22:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help from me as well! -- BACbKA 13:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at here. -- Ragib 02:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I hate to ask you again, but the talk page of the article has started become quite nasty , with words like "Bigot", "Liar", "Coward", "waste of space". Since I had edited the article in the past, and had some disagreement with the parties involved in the current edit war, it would be a conflict of interest in my part to take any admin action over these type of personal attacks between the editors. I think it is time for an RFC, because the conflict has been going on for more than 3 months now. --
Ragib
05:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, my edit counter, and contribution tree are somewhat merged... that is, the edit counter link is probably sufficient to access a person's contribution tree. So, it's probably sufficient to only post the link to the one tool in RFA now, if you want. As for edit summaries, I don't know how long it will be until that's available from the toolserver... possibly not for a long time, because there's no database index that covers it, and I haven't figured out any user-friendly ways around that yet. So it's good you kept your code working the whole time. -- Interiot 10:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I have been using those more often, though I sometimes refrain from doing so to avoid confusion. Thanks! --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 18:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, this is Mb1000. You recently voted Neutral on my request for adminship. Is there anyway you could reconsider and vote to Support me? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. -- Mb1000 18:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
P.S. If you have any questions you'd like to ask me, just post them on the comments page. I'll answer them as soon as I see them. Thanks.
how do I sign my name? I tried (Beoknoc) but it didn't work.
By the way, if you are able to send me that un-editable message, you must have some sort of power in the wiki world. Please fire yourself promptly for abuse of a new user.
(beoknoc)
I think i have it...
beoknoc 04:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Yay! May I ask why you care about some wierdo's desire to add something to the LCM article?
beoknoc 04:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Privyet Oleg! I notice that you like perl programming as do I... It is one of the best languages that I have found to write in. I like the intrinsic ability to deal with hashes. 0waldo 13:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for cropping the image I uploaded: RightTriangleWithIncircle2.jpg
I made the image myself, using Microsoft PowerPoint. I would like to correct the license so that it is not deleted (the image should be in the public domain). Can you tell me the steps for doing this? I've looked in the on-line help area and can't find the steps that I need.
Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bronsongardner ( talk • contribs) .
About Image:RightTriangleWithIncircle.jpg. I think, all you need to do, is go to that image, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:RightTriangleWithIncircle.jpg, and type there
==Licence== {{PD-self}} ~~~~
That will specifiy that the image is made by you and is in public domain, and there will be your signature. Hope that helps. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 01:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I knew that box was there, but never really tried to utilize it. Now that I am a changed Wikipedian I will make sure that the box is filled, so that people realize that I am not vandalizing anything. Again, thanks for the heads up! Thistheman 05:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you take a look at Talk:al-Khwarizmi#Al-Khwarizmi has Turkish Origin.? A user keeps inserting that al-Khwarizmi was Turkish without providing sources which back this up. He seems to be immune to discussion, but I think starting an RfC over this would be a bit over the top. Cheers, — Ruud 19:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
ok, that wasn't the best heading but it does not matter anyway. What exactly was it about my articles that seemed non-encyclopedic, can I not explain stuff out or what? TheHorse'sMouth 01:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I undid your edit at divisor, because, as far as I am aware, 0 is indeed a divisor of zero. No problems of dividing by zero show up, and the definition works just fine. Wonder what you think.
By the way, it is good if you use an edit summary when you contribute, and also, it is good if you use the notation Z or for integers, than just Z. These are two small tips. :) Welcome! Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 21:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
You have been very patient with me. If I remember that night now I could say that night I was very tired. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cikicdragan ( talk • contribs) .
Just a note here: Zero certainly divides zero, but I'd be careful about calling it a "divisor of zero". Sometimes that phrase is used for a nonzero element that can be multiplied by a nonzero element, resulting in zero. That is, an integral domain is a ring that has no divisors of zero. -- Trovatore 01:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Logically, if one number divide another number, why we cannot call it divisor, without further staff? Now, I'm learning discrete math, and there we have this definition of divisibility: Let a and b are integers. We say that a divide b if a is not zero and there exist integer k so that b is equal to a*k. a is divisor of b and so on... -- Čikić Dragan 12:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey Oleg. I share your concerns about Tony's behavior. Let's see what happens at Aaron's draft "RfC". We can always file a "real" one, or reformat it or whatever we feel is appropriate later. I would urge you to engage Tony, there and elsewhere, about your concerns. — Paul August ☎ 19:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Greeting, Oleg. Thanks for helping to clean up my talkpage. What do you suppose this Gobtude thing is all about? I'm a bit confused. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 19:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey, i just looked back at the cross product page, and I noticed that you put back Lagrange's formula in its original spot after I thought we had come to a compromise. I still think Lagrange's formula does *not* belong in the "properties of a cross product" section - since it is most certainly not a "property" of the cross product.
Secondly, you reverted my un-signed-in edit about the 3 component vectors. I read the edit note. A cross product can be done on a vector with ANY amount of components. I think this should be stressed in the article, and as a first stress i wanted to note that the section on matrices is very very narrow.
Fresheneesz 04:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi - any reason why User:Mathbot/Page1 is listed as a geography stub? Grutness... wha? 05:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Could you move Biruni to al-Biruni for me? Thanks — Ruud 05:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if you already knew this, but I just wanted to tell you that I replied on the talk page for list of hip hop musicians a couple days ago.-- Urthogie 10:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Only one way of doing things? Hmmm. :)
Though I'm back, I'm not too active. I'm particularly eager to see what's decided on the Hewitt affair, although don't want to get involved in the "vortex" arguments he's spinning over there.-- CSTAR 16:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Check the latest exploits by Anittas' buddy. Also check the contributions. -- Ghirla | talk 18:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I found Binomial proportion confidence interval in the dead end pages, It has been on there for about 3 weeks and its author has made no other contributions. As I have no skills in this area, perhaps could you take it under your wing. If it is not salvageable, i will recommend it as an AFD or perhaps a redirect MNewnham 19:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Commander Keane. A couple of days ago, when I removed the links to the wikipedia bootcamp from the welcome template, you put the link to {helpme} back, citing consensus on the talk page. Well, it seems that now you are breaking that consensus, by adding in the bootcamp link.
I am sure that Danny feels very strongly about the bootcamp, but as you noticed, the opinions are leaning towards removing that link.
I could use my administrator's privileges to undo your edit, but I will not do that. I have spent a week arguing that matter on the talk page (with the bootcamp link in), and am willing to spend a week more. But for future reference, I suggest you act with more discernment in these matters. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk)
It's nothing to do with consensus, it's about helping new users. Danny wants to help new users (he has to deal with them on the phone every day), I want to help new users. Take a look at User talk:Jrbrunger. Read it. In two minutes I was there, we got a new article, we probably secured a fantastic new contributor. That's what this is all about.-- Commander Keane 04:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I figured I was a rouge admin, but i'm glad i've come a long way into the realm of respected admins(apparently anyway, from your comment). Even when I disagree with others within the project, I consider it my duty as an advisor at Esperanza to maintain a calm and cool demeanor when doing so. Who knows? Maybe I can make it onto the Arbcom in 2015 or so ;-) Karm a fist 12:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Mulţumesc pentru atenţionare. Am să încerc, însă nu promit ;-) -- Romihaitza 15:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I will take your advice and guidance. Actually, one of the first things I did was to create a user account with Wikipedia I thought Wikipedia saved a cookie so that I wouldn't have to log in each time, but I suppose that doesn't always work. Also.I do use the preview button, but probably not as much as I should. I'll do better in the future in that regards. Thanks for the heads up and your patience with my learning the system.
Please consider stopping Mathbot from posting the little chunk of statistics on RfA. It promotes a form of statisticsitis which is not conductive to the intended purpose of the page. People should be getting their own stats if those are part of their personal criterion. Thanks. Rob Church ( talk) 02:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey Oleg. I tried several ways of making the vector bold (e.g., \bf, \textbf, \boldmath) None seem to be working. Then I resorted to underline. Do you know how to do it? For all x is correct. Thanks! deeptrivia ( talk) 04:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Flcelloguy. Despite of the numerous people who object to the link to the bootcamp in the welcome template, and the fact that it is not in fact necessary, with the {{ helpme}} template being enough for their project, the people from the bootcamp project keep on using their administrative privileges to put the bootcamp link back in. I don't plan to get involved in such a game, as I find it silly to push one's point with edit wars using admin privileges rather than talk, but something should be done about it. Wonder what you think. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 15:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Oleg, could you please look at this discussion Talk:Many-worlds interpretation.. This guy has accused me of practically everything, including being educated by Jesuits (which is true but irrelevant).-- CSTAR 00:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/proffer -- Trovatore 05:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. I have increased the size of the image so that it is much easier to read on the page. I'll work on moving the text from the picture into the body of the text. Thank you again for your suggestions.
Bronson Gardner
Dear Oleg, the final term is approaching for the moldovan wiki vote. Considering the status of this wiki, would you consider changing your vote from "neutru" to "contra"? Having a clear-cut internal vote will probably strengthen the position when discussing the problem on meta. Dpotop 11:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Flcelloguy. Thanks a lot for your excellent handling of the bootcamp issue at template talk:welcome. I must say that I have been very impressed with your diplomacy and insight in a number of places on Wikipedia. I believe you would be a valuable addition to the arbitration committee, should you decide to run for the job. Keep on doing the good work! Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tony. I just stumbled upon your responses at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Holding a Lynching?. I must say that I agree with you that my comment, in its own heading (RFC against Tony Sidayway) was an overkill, and may have been interpretted as a lynching. That was by no means my intention, and I appologize.
To explain myself, that was a somwhat "natural" reaction to the comments above that heading, which amounted to "Tony is perpetually wheel-warring, and RfC's against him won't work". I believe most people got my intention, with a few exceptions, but of course, that approach did not please you. So, again, that was a bit heavy-handed, and again, I am sorry.
However, I do not think it was necessary (as you suggested) to talk about this in advance with you on your talk page, or that you and me should have had some kind of prior encounters to justify such a statement as I had written at WP:AN/I. I am sure that you are aware that Wikipedia is overall a small place, and that you had gained some kind of notoriety about having disagreements with other administrators which would lead to "wheel warring" (yeah, I know you don't like the term, I know you believe it is abused, and I know that you have your own explanations for your actions).
That it to say, public criticism from persons you never encountered and who never wrote on your talk page I believe is something acceptable and to be expected. So I don't think that one I got wrong. But again, I could have handled it better.
You can reply here if you have comments, I will keep your talk page on my wathclist for a while. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 23:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
This is getting interesting. Paraphrasing you from your RfC, I might learn something. I would think that you would be right, if we assume that there was a personal dispute (say between you and me). But this is not how I saw it. I had never met you before that time, so I did not have any dispute to solve.
What I saw, was a note at WP:AN/I about a wheel war, with you part of it (with the proper disclaimer for "wheel war", written above). Given your history of wheel wars before, and how troubling that is for the community, I would think that in that context an RfC was more appropriate way of doing things than a dispute resolution. Wonder what your comment is on this. (As stated above, I take it more as an opportunity to learn rather than attempting to be confrontational, I believe the issue with the lynching to have been closed, and with no damage on any side.) Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
RfC is also request for comment on user conduct. By no means do I mean to make this into an argument, but I would like to point out that I believe you were aware that you were engaging in wheel warring, and of people's comments about that. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 05:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)