The Old AfD thingy says I "don't have permission to access the requested object. It is either read-protected or not readable by the server." -- Rory096 00:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
diff. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 13:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Cuddly or not, it needs a bit of Proverbs 13:24, as it neglects to update Talk:List of numerical analysis topics#D: Potential searchable categories. Bad bot. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 04:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I see you removed Foxearth's RfA nom as badly formatted and unaccepted. (Technically the canditate did accept it [1] (albeit in a badly formatted/unsigned way, which got pushed down under comments by another user) However, it does remain badly formatted, which is grounds for removal from the RfA list. However, as it appears that the nominee is a relatively inexperienced user, (which would explain the formatting issues) would you mind dropping them a quick note as well? I've previously recommended to them to withdraw the RfA, so don't want them to get all the bad news from one person in case they take it the wrong way. :) Cheers, MartinRe 16:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if maybe your bot could help us with something? At WP:AfC, we have a bit of a problem with archiving, we lost the bot that did it for us. Perhaps Mathbot could help with this? ( Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Archiving_Wikipedia:Articles_for_Creation. Thanks either way, since Mathbot is just cool! -- Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 08:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, I was getting back to work on the PlanetMat project when I noticed that your conversion tool: Pmform, doesn't seem to be converting <a>, </a> tags (used to do PM internal links). Whats up? Paul August ☎ 18:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
<a id="tex2html1" href="http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/Identity2.html" name="tex2html1">category</a>
<a name="tex2html1" href="http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/Identity2.html" id="tex2html1">category</a>
Thanks ;-) Paul August ☎ 19:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Dylan Lennon/Warel nominated the article on Shohé Tanaka for deletion, and it was deleted. This rticle should not have been nominated, and certainly not actually deleted, since Tanaka was a significant figure as a music theorist, and a physicist and interesting historical character besides. I want it undeleted, and I think this shows there is something wrong with the deletion process. Why was n one who knew something about the subject contacted before the article was deleted? This is a sign of a broken system. I'd be interested in getting a list of everything Dylan Lennon nominated for deletion, and reviewing all that he has done in this department, which seems to at least skate close to vandalis, if not over the line. Gene Ward Smith 01:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For your extraordinary patience with the Dylan Lennon/WAREL incidents, I award you The Barnstar of Diligence. Isopropyl 02:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC) |
Concerning the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholesky_decomposition, "Applications" section discussing ________ Kalman filtering as an application of Cholesky decomposition.
I have been reading up on this rather extensively recently; the application is "unscented Kalman filtering," NOT "uncentered Kalman filtering." Read the "Kalman filters" page on Wikipedia for more info (I thought this would be a slam-dunk change), or check out: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/wan01unscented.html (with specific, explicit references to performing the Cholesky decomposition for arriving at the Sigma points used in unscented Kalman filtering), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unscented_Kalman_filter (the wikipedia page), http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~murphyk/Papers/Julier_Uhlmann_mar04.pdf (also with reference to using Cholesky decomposition as stable means of finding sigma points; page 406, footnote 6).
Any evidence that "uncentered" is the correct term? I am making the change again, to "unscented," and please justify a further change with citations, etc. The only Google result I found for "uncentered Kalman filter," for example, was this erroneous Wikipedia entry.
Appreciation, insignificant1
Hi Oleg. No worries. I didn't notice the late discussion about the issue. Cheers -- Szvest 19:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Hi Oleg, your mathbot is excellent in finding all the classifications in the WP:Chem wikiproject. I regularly maintain the list of grouped classifications (focussing on the projects goals instead of just listing them) in the project's worklist, and therefore find the log file of the mathbot very useful. Now, yesterday, I thought that perhaps mathbot didn't run, as there is no notification on the logpage, although I assume that it did do the scanning. Hence my question:
Nice, thanks! So I have another question, if I may: can you add a some counting statistics on the large table, viz.
Even if this can't be done, thanks for your attention. If it can, I'll use that info for the WP:Chem statistics. Wim van Dorst ( Talk) 15:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC).
Hello, Oleg Alexandrov. I was wondering, was your decision to message me brought about by an instance where I botched up while editing an article somewhere, perhaps? Thanks for the tips! - vedace 01:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Mr. Alexandrov. I do not think your removal of my change to the logarithm article is as useful as my change itself was. Although I agree with you about not using unnecessary wording, the part I added was not entirely unnecessary. Rather, it corrected an inaccuracy in the definition of b^n. Now a further user has changed it again to something still not as accurate as what I put in (see below). I will not change it again on the main page, to avoid repeated back-and-forth. However, I would like to make the case here to suggest you change it to something more accurate, suggested below. Here is the edit I had put in:
... b^n means multiplying b by itself a number of times, using it as a factor in this multiplication n times ...
You changed it back to the original to say
" ... b^n means multiplying b by itself n times ...".
This is not correct, as I pointed out on the talk page associated with the article. If you multiply b by itself one time, you get b*b = b^2, not b^1. If you multiply b by itself 2 times, you get b*b*b = b^3, not b^2. It may be that the English is subtle here, especially for a non-native English speaker. However, this version is clearly inaccurate.
Michael Hardy has now changed it to
" ... b^n means b is multiplied n times ..."
This, I think, is unclear, and still able to be interpreted as inaccurate in the same way the original was. If b is multiplied two times, it could easily mean b*b*b - that has two multiplications, whereas b*b only has one.
If you still object to my initial language, I propose this, shorter than my original change, but still more accurate than either revision of what I put:
" ... b^n means multiplying b by itself, using it as a factor n times ..."
Please consider making this change, or proposing a better one that does not have the original problem I pointed out.
Thanks, Ken Cliffer (I am a scientist, with a Ph.D. in anatomy, but now work as an educational consultant, currently developing math videos. This issue came up in our presentation of exponentiation. I was happy to see that the Wikipedia article on exponentiation did not have this problem.)
Thanks for your comments on ∇ & del, guess I was just getting lazy, but will do better from now on! -- Iantresman 16:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Just curious, why have a bot which creates a list to duplicate a category? Just zis Guy you know? 08:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
But it is not just one category. The list of mathematics articles is generated from the lists at the list of mathematics categories. There are 700 mathematics related categories at the moment, and growing. Are you saying that looking up additions/removals/changes from 700 categories is just as easy as doing it on a list?
About having it in the Wikipedia namespace, I don't know. I think the lists are fine where they are. There are plenty of lists in the main namespace, and I don't see a good reason to move the math lists from there. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 14:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg,
About compositions of rotations: you wrote
If however one performs rotation around a point (axis) followed by rotation around another point (axis), the overall movement may be a translation rather than a rotation.
I think our editing reverts have been because we agree but have opposite points of view: you want to point out that two rotations may be a translation (or rotation), but I want to point out that two rotations in general do not represent a translation or rotation.
Thus, perhaps
If however one performs rotation around a point (axis) followed by rotation around another point (axis), the overall movement may be a translation rather than a rotation (but in general is neither).
216.232.222.122 15:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC), formerly MrMoto, but this account seems to have been eaten up. :(
Thank you KSmrq. Would be nice to have this somewhere. Maybe not the full formulas in the general purpose rotation article, but at least the ideas. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 19:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I have created a new page on fine topology (as in classical potential theory), but as the title "fine topology" already seems to be taken by a page about general topology (i.e. 'finer topology' rather than "THE fine topology"), I have called my page "classical fine topology" - seems like there ought to be a better solution - any ideas? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madmath789 ( talk • contribs) .
Hello Oleg,
Sorry for occupying you but I am quite new to this so your guidance is greatly appreciated.
You have recently deleted our external link on the fractions wiki page with the explanation that is is an irrlevant link.
While I respect your opinion, I am trying to understand what the criteria are.
In essence Skillage.net is a pilot program. I have tutored many students of various age and grade levels and have discovered that thay are lacking some very basic math skills. With skillage.net While there are thousands of sites out there that provide the ability to practice (or purchase practice help, tutoring, etc) we are seeking to build a framework that provides a comprehensive skill building curriculum with a common look and feel.
To make a long sory short, what I am wondering is what your criteria are for deciding to keep Kwiznet as an external reference you rate skillage.net non-suitable.
Thanx for any guidance you can provide.
Regards,
Achim
Hi, I understand why you might be upset with Gene but could you lay it down? Both of you are making constructive comments on real number and it looks silly when you two make shots across each other's bow. I think if you stop, he will stop as well. Thanks. -- 127. *. *. 1 13:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
For your information, re your revert on path integral: This text has been added before, and I removed it at that time. No idea what's going on here. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 04:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi!
This is me who added symmetric derivative thing.
Actually I wasn't talking about definitions, but about correct calculating of derivative [you were right in your comment when mentioned that it's applicable for numeric stuff]. I didn't find anything about it on wiki, so I think it should be added something like that:
If:
1. There exists left-derivative;
2. There exists right-derivative;
3. They are equal,
than derivative can be calculated more precisely with following formula: .
How about that? --anon
I have to admit the Inward normal picture was not good-looking. I thank you for admitting that I had a point. I also thank you for inviting comments.
As an Engineer, my concept of a surface, closed or not, is a barrier, the outside is at which I am directly looking. The normal coming toward me is an outward normal on the outside surface. The normal going away from me but terminating at the "outside" of the surface is the inward normal.
The invisible (to me) side of the surface is the "lnside" of the surface. The normal starting at the inside and going away from me is the other "outward" normal. If the outward normal I am looking at satisfies the "right hand rule" for an orientable surface then the "other" outward normal must satisfy the "left hand rule". The "inward" normal on each surface is the exact negative of the "outward" normal.
If normals penetrate the surface, the "inward" normal on the "outside" surface changes to an "outward" normal on the "inside" surface. All definitions are then jumbled up.
Thank You user:subhash15
Hi Oleg,
Could you please stop Mathbot from updating the good articles talk page with a list of missing articles?
The lists no longer seem to contain any useful information [2] [3] [4] [5]. Possibly because of a change in the format of the good articles page. Plus most maintenance of the good articles page is now done by the GAAuto script.
Your bot did precede the GAAuto script so thank you for your early work.
Cedars 05:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering about how the administrators can tell whether an article is being protected from vandals and foolish editors. Is there a way to determine how many editors are watching an article and how many of them are active. Or even exactly who they are? Can you find articles which have less than three active editors watching them? If not, perhaps Mathbot or something like it could search for such articles and make a list. JRSpriggs 04:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Just curious:
Did you created MathBot? If so, how did you do so? Thanks in advance.
MoleculeUpload 02:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Again thank you. - MoleculeUpload 02:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Very funny the link beneath your page ;)
There are some people that have not yet understood (or they have forgotten) that the purpose of science is to provide efficient and utterly compatible informations to interact with the reality. What model do they propose instead of gravity ? That of a Supreme Intelligence, who Works in a Mysterious Way. What a very useful model ! ;) That's not science, just teleology.
Almeo 09:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello, its me again.
What type of bot do you feel Wikipedia needs? I am interested in doing whatever I can, but I want to make sure that the Wikipedia community is O.K. with any bot I run.
Thank you! - MoleculeUploadBot 15:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. - NoUser 15:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The new article looks great. Thanks for working on the mathematical notation, and also moving it to singular form.
I don't have enough knowledge to write an article on the topic you suggested - you are more qualified to do so anyway, seeing that you are a PhD student in math! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elb2000 ( talk • contribs) .
I work with Windows XP computers. How can I write a bot with the computer as it is (or with only a few updates)? I already have Microsoft Visual Basic (5.0) installed on it. I hope I am not bugging you to much about WikiBots, but I have never done anything quite like it. Thanks! - MoleculeUpload 12:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. - NoUser 20:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems Mathbot has blanked his pages of mathematical redlinks for some reason. I'm not sure if there's a reason, or if he's just spitting sparks and spinning in circles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Originalbigj ( talk • contribs) .
Hi Oleg, and thank you for your thoughtful comments in my request for adminship! With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance ... Please let me know what you think! Thanks again, and thanks as well for your efforts with MathBot. Too bad about him not making Admin though! I look forward to working with you on WP 1.0 and other things in future... + + Lar: t/ c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I just downloaded a version of Perl for Windows XP. Where could I find a decent guide for learning the langauge (I am thinking of writing my bot in Perl). Thank you! - MoleculeUpload 19:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we would have lasted much longer. - lethe talk + 22:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I wrote another proposed definition on talk:logarithm, but I thought since you were involved with that, you'd want to take a look before I screw things up. Fresheneesz 23:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Reviewing my User talk: page, I realised that I never responded to several edits from over a year ago in a discussion that we were having then. I don't even remember why I stopped corresponding then, but I suppose that it's only fair to warn you that this happens to me on the Internet sometimes when Real Life becomes too pressing, and online activities get pushed back further and further and ... well, I'm sorry.
I don't think that I have anything to criticise you about on this now. But for the record (not that it'll be a very precise record after a year):
Well, better late than never, as they say; I was rude to you, and I'm sorry. -- Toby Bartels 21:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this is the third or fourth time that I created an article and forgot to categorise it, and you fixed it. It's great, though! Thanks for catching them, and I promise I'll try better to remember about categories :-)
RandomP 21:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg. I'm testing out using MathBot for physics articles, and I know that some WikiProjects also use the importance column, e.g. Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Chemistry_articles_by_quality. Does MathBot sort by importance in some way, or does it simply maintain those labels once they're added by hand to the tables? -- SCZenz 04:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg. thanks for your guide!
ses
Oleg,
I am putting together a guide for using Mathbot for WP:1.0 work. As I understand it, projects can simply add a new subcategory tree at Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments without telling you, and Mathbot will faithfully generate tables, a log and statistics to order. Is this correct? Or do you need to know that a project is adding themselves to the list? It seems that several groups have already added themselves in quietly, is this OK? If the bot can handle all this without needing to know that would be wonderful. If people need to ask your permission, please let me know ASAP, as we are going to be contacting WikiProjects again very soon. Thanks again for your wonderful work! Walkerma 04:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I missed this User:Jaranda/Requests for adminship/Mathbot, I would have had a few choice words to add. Paul August ☎ 16:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I will. By the way whatever happened to all your nice awards on your user page? Paul August ☎ 18:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you knew anything about picture licenses, and what licences a picture must have to be on wikipedia. Another user just told me that Image:SkyTran Seattle2.jpg doesn't have the right permissions to be on wikipedia (although it does have permission from the owner to be on wikipedia). The guy that brought this to my attention said that "the image would need to be relesed under the GFDL, creative commons attribution, creative commons attribution-ShareAlike or released into the public domain". I have doubts about this requirment, and I would think that many fair-use pictures on wikipedia don't adhere to that. What do you think about this? Fresheneesz 23:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone moved Kronecker limit formula to Kronecker Limit Formula in the middle of my attempts to write the article, and my attempt to revert this cleanly didnt work; it seems to require deleting pages. Could you sort this out please? Thanks, R.e.b. 14:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a new wikiproject covering about 250 articles, almost all of which seem to be in a stub or start stage. Project formation was prompted by {{ WPCD}} tagging. See here for the project's article assessment format. It includes rating of importance to the project. Any pointers or advice you can offer would be appreciated. -- Paleorthid 16:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
0<k<1 ;
,
than what is the value of ?
Answer is but I couldnat get how...
All I got is ; than?
Thanx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.98.51.185 ( talk • contribs) 20:25, June 11, 2006.
There was recently a change to template:RfA making the sections bold using "; Comment" instead of "'''Comment'''" (see WT:RFA for discussion) Since Mathbot needs to recognize which section is the comments section to place the edit summary thing, I have reverted for now, until it can support this. Let me know when it can do that, or just revert the template yourself. :) --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rory096 ( talk • contribs) .
I wrote some stuff on Calculus of Variations in May, and now discover that the tail end was deleted by an unidentifed user on May 23. I notice that you tried to contact this person, but I saw no response. Anyhow, this user claimed that my version of the inhomogeneous wave equation was incorrect, and accordingly deleted a section. Before getting into a tit for tat battle with unknown persons, I'd like your suggestions. Check it out: the wave equation I gave is generally accepted. It may be that my contibutions are opaque, but that is another matter. Donludwig 16:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
My objective is to provide an intuitive introduction to Hamilton-Jacobi theory.
Donludwig
16:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Surface Normal Outward Normal Left and Right hand rules
Re: Article Surface Normal
Dear Dr. Alexandrov,
The word "outward" was edited out of the caption of the image with the advice to stay away from that adjective. However S. P. Timoshenko, recognized as the father of Engineering Elasticity, in his book Theory of Elasticity uses the symbol "N" to represent "outward normal to the surface of a body" The images in the book showing normals are exactly identical to the image in the article.
If an outward normal is to be recognized, shouldn't an inward normal be also recognized? The inward normal vector represents a pressure
If one of the two normals is determined by the Right-hand rule, isn't the other normal, in the opposite direction, uniquely determined by the Left-hand rule?
I have also copied this to Smrq. Could you kindly respond? Subhash 01:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Subhash15/Trial2"
JA: Hi, could you help sort out the continuing tangles at Propositional calculus? First there was that improper name change last month, and I let it go because the user who did it seemed fairly competent and added some good stuff, but now the word "logic" seems to be inviting anonymous users to take the article out of the mathematical logic designation and add any sort of half-baked exposition that they can cook up. I don't know my way around the procedures well enough to keep dealing with sort of stuff. Much appreciated, Jon Awbrey 05:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey Oleg, it seems that the link to the AfD script in WP:AFD/Old is no longer active. Is your account no longer active at that address? Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I re-added the attribution to Image:Locus_Curve.jpg on this page, because it is required according to the license. It doesn't seem like the best image anyway, so perhaps someone more knowledgable than I about the subject could create a replacement image that does not require attribution. -- Gnewf 05:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Just a reminder, it is good if you use an edit summary when you contribute, it helps others understand what you change. Thanks. You can reply here if you have comments. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The preview button is a good thing too. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, could you please include the classification results for the wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting, using the {{ WikiProject Scouting}} template with class and importance rating. The wikiproject is currently starting on the use of classification, and would gladly be included in your excellent mathbot counting. Regards, Wim van Dorst ( Talk) 20:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC).
Oleg, the edit summary line. What do we put in the edit summary bar? Just a phrase about the changes made?
Thanks, Billy Hathorn —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billy Hathorn ( talk • contribs) .
It seems we've finally broken past 10,000 assessed articles. We have—thanks, in no small part, to your programming skills and willingness to devote your valuable time to this project—achieved the first steps of what may become the semi-mythical article validation system that everyone always talks about. We—as Wikipedians—are in your debt. Kirill Lokshin 05:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I just want to say thank you for your help and speedy edit at Logarithmically convex function. The article has improved greatly in a few minutes, after both mine and your edits. ;) -- Clearcontent 02:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks you you amendment to our category - We " Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels" are gearing up to get envolved with the WP:1.0]] teams assessment approach - who do we talk to - and how do we proceed? I know you might not be the person but you obviously have an interest / envolvement so I thought I'd ask :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 07:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Just seen that there are some automated pages in place - however I needed to correct the link to our discussion forum which you might like to know about - unlike what was there it should be Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum#Version 1.0 Editorial Team cooperation. I changed one page only to notice it was on an obviously automatically generated page deeper in. Also that page had the project as Wikipedia:WikiProject Novel when it should read Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels. Ok - thanks for all you help. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 15:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll use your edit summary bar, but aren't all edits recorded, that you can see the change I've done just by clicking a link? And surely someone could lie, or exaggerate, or be mistaken in the bar?
//// Pacific PanDeist * 02:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
//// Pacific PanDeist * 02:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Edit summaries are good as they show up on the watchlist and you don't need to click on links to see what changed. Besides, the intent of one's edits is not always clear from the edits themselves, or at least it would take more time that way. So, using an edit summary is a good practrice.
About the 9.999.. see proof that 0.999... equals 1. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
//// Pacific PanDeist * 04:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
It is not my work it is User:Ktims-- Jaro.p 11:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I created a chart of admins by percentile, but I'm wondering should I call group nine "admins between the 80th and 90th percentile" or "admins between the 10th and 20th" percentile? Are there firm rules about which direction you start from? Thanks, NoSeptember 15:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Could you have a look at this edit, and perhaps other edits by the same editor? It looks like original research. I've a flight to catch (will be away for a week), so I can't do it myself. Cheers. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 03:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Howdy, I am aware of the Edit Summary, but tend not to use it when I think it would not add anything. Also, I usually compare versions using the history, to insure that what is described is accurate. In the case that I think you are referring to (e), I deleted an external link that seemed, to me, to be inappropriate. Of course, other people might have different opinions on the appropriateness.
Which leads to my question: you reinstated the link ("Scales of e"). What was your reasoning?
Kind wishes, Daphne A 18:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled " 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.
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 02:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear oleg, How can u delete that when i have given reference to it. If it is not formatted correctly some other wikipedian will do that. I think thats the way wikipedia works. Bharatveer 15:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Pls explain which information is incorrect. Bharatveer 16:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Greetings Oleg Alexandrov, I've just noticed your reverted Tnavbar TfD and from that I discovered your commentary addressed to the user who was somewhat blindly applying it. I've responded to that user myself in light of my own concerns in this regard. Thanks for reverting your TfD. :-) ← Netscott→ 18:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Eskog feels that January 2007 and July 15, 2067 are not speedy candidates. As one of the admins taking actions against other dates by User:Jose and Ricardo, I was wondering whether you want to further comment. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
You edited the article about FATS ( foreign affiliate trade statistics) saying it wasnt about statistics.
You don't know the topic. This is about statistics. --unsigned
-- istia 01:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
-- istia 09:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear Oleg,
if I have time, I might try to include more stuff on Pade Approximants.
Thanks for the invitation
Regards
DerHannes 11:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
..."I like she topologists." -- Oleg.
If you like, I can set you up with one. :-) -- C S (Talk) 16:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Could you change the program a bit to include noncapitalized classes in the lists. For example class=b and class=B both work on the discussion page but only class=B works on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Film articles by quality/1. The same goes for class=start and class=Start and class=stub and class=Stub. Andman8 17:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The natural numbers ARE the union of all inductive sets. So what if it's a complicated definition, it's THE definition and you shouldn't dumb it down for the masses. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia after all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.127.24.25 ( talk • contribs) 21:24, July 7, 2006 (UTC)
The bot count of projects is wrong. There are 32 projects, not 30. Rlevse 22:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
... due to a planned outage of the computer network the bot lives on. Should be back in around 16 hours. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 04:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for that suggestion about disabling minor edit by default. It has really changed how I think about editing and has encouraged me to put in descriptive edit summaries. I'm not sure about other people, but I truly appreciate a person willing to give constructive advice =D -- mboverload @ 00:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there a way my
custom look... can be mantained while the bot still runs? --
Shane (
talk/
contrib)
03:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
hello, I need to solve a differential equation, yet I am not sure how to go about it. Could you help? it is: I thought about using (y=e^λt), but it does not seem to work -- could you help me? Thank you -- DragonFly31 09:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
That's it! i'm looking to solve it through the method of undertermined coefficients; but I have no idea how to go about it. Could you give me a way to solve it using this technique? Cheers-- DragonFly31 12:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)-- 195.6.25.118 12:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I was teasing Oleg because he said something similar to Lethe and myself. See the section "Help?" above. In the edit summary of his 11:07, 12 June 2006 edit, Oleg said "Thanks Lethe and JRSpriggs. I guess instead of an encyclopedia we are becoming a free help for people who can't do their homework. :)". JRSpriggs 04:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thank for the help -- I've actually got it now-- DragonFly31 07:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mr. Alexandrov, I was wondering if you could explain what mathbot's output means? For instance, I insert my own username as input and receive the output: "99% for major edits and 65% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace." What do the 99% and 65% indicate? I couldn't find any explanation at User:Mathbot. Thanks, Kasreyn 23:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks, long overdue I think, for your amazing work in automating the collection of statistics and metadata by/from WikiProjects. If you had said that by mid-July the bot would be crawling through 50,000 articles, with almost 19,000 assessed, I would never have believed it! Projects are signing on faster than we can contact them! I think once it is established, it will allow us to see across much of Wikipedia and easily find the best/most important articles in each area. All of Wikipedia will be grateful to you, I'm sure. Thanks, Walkerma 05:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC
thanks for the tip on the correct case. Ste4k 23:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
There has been a long discussion here about the use of the Mathbot quality and importance rating system for Wikiprojects. I think we have convinced the originator of the delete proposal that the Mathbot rating system is pretty much a feature of the Wikipedia Wikiproject landscape and isn't going to go away anytime soon.
However, he/she has raised an issue that is worth considering. The issue is that rating an article's importance is inherently a POV statement that is open to debate and contentiousness. As a compromise, we are thinking of using the word "priority" instead of "importance". On the one hand, this seems like a pretty silly exercise in semantics. However, if this will make people happy, it's worth considering.
We discussed just having the bot change from "importance" to "priority" but that would require convincing the editors of 42 projects that use the Mathbot rating system to make this change.
Faced with a choice of "A" or "B", we are now saying "Both! At our discretion!"
So, the proposal would be that Mathbot could be modified to look for "priority" as well as "importance". The output could then be parameterized to output whatever metric the project template wishes to output. Thus, one project could specify "importance" and "quality" while another could specify "priority" and "quality".
Questions to you:
Thanks for considering this request.
-- Richard 19:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
They have been at it all day...trying to add links to encyclopedia dramatica since I am on their mainpage...the individual is just trolling. No one at Wikipedia has to tolerate persoanl defamation, not me and not you. Reverting me again will be the same as endorsing their attempts at disruption.-- MONGO 06:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Look dude, I am most definitely not playing with you.-- MONGO 06:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello Oleg,
Thanks for recently going over the hypernumbers page and cleaning it up, I appreciate. There is one concern about the categories they are in, in fact I'm not that sure myself, either. You have removed them from the category Category:Numbers, which I want to revert, since Category:Numbers is the single category where I stronly feel they ought to be in. As for the others, I'd be glad for any comment:
Category:Abstract algebra: I would leave this category.
Category:Hyperbolic geometry: Probably I'll take it out. People looking for hyperbolic geometry may not immediately want to look at hypernumbers. Instead, they may want to look at quaternionic or split-complex systems first, from which there are existing links to hypernumbers.
Category:Nonassociative algebra: Most hypernumber arithmetic is non-associative, so it may be of interest for people looking for this topic. I feel that hypernumbers fall into this category, even though there are some types that are associative.
As for Category:Octonions, Category:Quaternions, and Category:Sedenions, maybe we want to take hypernumbers back out from these categories; while hypernumbers contain several quaternion, octonion, and sedenion types, hypernumbers as a whole do not fall into any of these categories. Hypernumbers are rather an extending concept, and I'll make sure they're properly referenced from the respective pages.
Therefore, I'll change the categories for now to Category:Numbers, Category:Abstract algebra, and Category:Nonassociative algebra. Please let me know (on my talk page or e-mail at jens@prisage.com ) if there is a better way of categorizing them.
Thanks, Jens
Koeplinger 20:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It might be helpful to increase the number of discussions that are directly linked when the the number gets low, from 10 to 15 or 20, so we don't have to scroll through 200 to find a handful. — Centrx→ talk • 23:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi!
Can you please erase this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illustration_of_a_low-discrepancy_sequence
I merged it with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-discrepancy_sequence
as requested.
Thanks,
Diego
Sorry about that. I got into a groove after a while, and I missed a few things that I should've caught. And apparently I've totally screwed up what a bad link was...I'm going to make sure that's not what I'm dealing with in the future. I promise I'll be more careful with what I'm doing in the future, I'm still trying to get a handle on what it can do. (I've only used AWB 3 times prior to tonight.)-- Toffile 03:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that you're an admin and I've been seeing you involved in AWB a lot. Could you possibly go over and approve the people applying for AWB privileges? My sock account (for spellchecking and repetitive edits) is one of them. Thanks, Alphachimp talk 17:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
(I'm posting this at both Arthur's and Oleg's talk page; my apologies for the redundancy.) I wonder if you might take a quick look at this AfD. I think keep to be in order, inasmuch as Wilkinson's polynomial is, I think, notable, and inasmuch as, though unsourced and perhaps not altogether accurate, the article isn't wholly unsalvagable, but the discussion would surely benefit from the insinuation of someone better-versed in numerical analysis than I. Thanks in advance for any guidance you might be able to provide at the AfD or the article's talk page... :) Joe 04:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Can you please explain this reversion in more detail at talk:Linux?
To me that note is very distracting and not very helpful. People looking for GNU only will not type GNU/Linux, and the relationship between GNU and Linux is explained at the correct place in the article. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 04:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
On the "Novel articles by quality" log I now find working with the page increasingly difficult due to it's growing size. Can I suggest that this page is separated out into it's component days. This would mean something like "Novel articles by quality log" would be a overall page of links to "Novel articles by quality log for 2006-07-25" or somesuch. Then we could get to work with a far smaller file and load lead data, reducing the server load.
I would also suggest that all the other subject logs should take an identical approach. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 10:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Now that he has vandalized Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics, I think that it is about time that he was blocked!!!!! JRSpriggs 05:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The da Vinci Barnstar | |
Mathbot rocks! evrik 01:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC) |
if you have a problem with my edits, please refrain from whole sale revert. Instead, edit. Because, wikipedia grows by piece-wise contribution, and that is the gist of its success. In my complex number edit which i spend quite some effort over 10 or so edits, i have at least corrected one technical error and added few info that are not there or ambiguous. I think you've been following my tail for some reason. (we first “met” probably over a year ago) I know what you want from me. You want me to prioritize the political or bureaucratical process over contributing content on wikipedia. That itself is questionable, but in any case should not be forced onto everyone. Xah Lee 09:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Oleg for the reversion of Mobius transformation - I think it was the best thing to do :-) Madmath789 16:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 05:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you had made some of the initial contributions to the Boris Galerkin article. The article has a cleanup request and I have done some cleanup, but it is still not close to perfect. I would very much appreciate it, if you could have a look at the article. Bfg 14:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I liked it better as a redirect. Would there be any objection to killing the redirect from 24601 to 24601 (number)? (I should check Project Mathematics more often.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I moved the examples as I think that they were long an relatively technical, I saw that that had been done in Integral (examples) so I followed the naming convention in use there. It would be better if either Integral (examples) was called Examples of integrals or we kept the Boundary value (examples) name, I would do not mind. I saw other people on the talk page asking if the examples were too much and I think three in an article this size was. I added wordy examples so I hope that compensates. I just thought I should explain myself to you as another maths editor. Rex the first talk | contribs 09:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Gosh, this is the fourth barnstar for working on WP:1.0. That is way, way behind schedule; as far as I can tell we have 53 projects at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index for the moment (so 49 more barnstars to go :)
Seriously, I am pleased. It appears that the WP1.0 is much more important to people than I thought, and I am happy my script is found useful. Thanks. :) Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 15:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The da Vinci Barnstar | |
The da Vinci Barnstar is awarded to Oleg Alexandrov/Mathbot for the bot's excellent design and Mathbot's tool. Gray Porpoise 16:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
Oleg,
My research in the fractiona part function and some other discrete functions dates back to 1996. It is the only available reasearch about the representation of some discrete functions in terms of elementary functions. Wolfram company, the publisher of Mathematica adopted the result that the derivative of fractional part. This has been published by me some months ago in the mathematics forums.
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
When this last complained about edit summaries, it was using the link edit summary, which is currently red for cross-namespace redirect reasons ( WP:RFD's likely to have a few at any given moment if you want to see the arguments). If you run it for this purpose again, could you change it to link to Wikipedia:edit summary (possibly piped) instead? -- ais523 16:42, 3 August 2006 ( U T C)
You are from also from Moldova? Then I shall let you cross. I am new with the encyclopedia, if you want to help me that would be appreciated. --anon
Hi Oleg. The bot will need to be told to ignore the above categories. They simply duplicate the content of the other categories, excepty they are ordered by class rather than by Project. They were only partly used so I have spent a lot of time populating and reorganising them. Cheers. -- kingboyk 10:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I know your bot runs off a set of categries and keeps them empty as per a new task of identifing old empty categories that should be deleted i would like a list of the cats your bot keeps empty. please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approvals#BetacommandBot_expansion_of_task your assitance would be welcomed. Betacommand 18:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure you're aware of it, but it's on AfD. I don't know your mathematical field, but perhaps you can find some notability? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I have changed my preferences as you've suggested to warn my before placing a summary-free edit. I have never played around much for preferences and was not aware of this feature. Thank you for letting me know of this useful option, and thanks in advance for your support vote. Andrew Levine 23:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to dump this on you, but when you get a chance would you take a look at the recent contributions of User:Ati3414 and form your own opinion as to the correct course of action, if any? -- Trovatore 17:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
hi just wanted to know what is wrong with my change to the complex numbers article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.216.229 ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 2006 August 10
I haven't seen how you bot works, but it seems to me that it should be easy to construct logs pages under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels pages by category, no? To be concrete, I was starting to dream up an assessment system for the fledgling Wikipedia: WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire (this is a series of fantasy novels), only to have all "our" pages subsumed under the Wikipedia: WikiProject Novels, including it's spiffy assessment system. What I would like now would be a table of only the pages organised under the Category:A Song of Ice and Fire, but with their Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels quality scales. This would help us make a more focussed contribution and avoid the need to have two parallel assessment systems. What is more, this seems to be a factorisation that other projects would benefit from. All assuming that you only have to add logic corresponding to "and requestedCategory isIn category(currentpage)" to your code somewhere, otherwise it's too much hassle. Arbor 10:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I saw
this. We would like the same list for
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medical Genetics. Could you help please?
NCurse
work
13:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
As the creator of the project and all Indonesian Wikipedians, thank you for updating the article ratings! We really appreciate it. Take care -- Imo eng 03:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks so much for voting, Oleg Alexandrov! Thanks so much for your support vote on my
request for adminship! With a final vote count of (82/5/0), it succeeded, and I'm now an administrator! I am thrilled with the overwhelming positive support from the community, and sincerely thank you once again for taking your time to voice your opinion. Feel free to contact me with any comments/suggestions in the future!— Mets501 ( talk) 03:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC) |
Sorry for the long message, ahahahah. Imo eng 11:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Mboverload is abusing AWB. He is "correcting" the spelling of words without making sure that the corrected version is, in fact, correct. He corrected a spelling to "iimmediately" (extra "i") and another to "unanimouss" (extra "s"). Please do something. JRSpriggs 05:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg. I think today's run might have crashed once it got to the Biography articles. It's not been heard from for several hours. Perhaps if you're around you could check and if that's the case skip Bio and do the others? Sorry in advance if our mass tagging has caused the problem. -- kingboyk 15:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
You said, "Other recent worrisome issues are her recent creation of a list of Wikipedians who voted oppose at a request for adminship." Just to let you know, that isn't really true ... without getting into specifics, let me say that the addition of those names from the RFA were spurious and that there were already a sizeable number of names on the list before that RFA ever began. The list itself wasn't about RFA activities. -- Cyde Weys 17:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, what happened to the Kilopi entry?
I seem to get redirected to asteroids.
there is an astronomy forum
http://www.bautforum.com/ (forum for badastronomy.com) where the term 'kilopi' referes to when a member(poster) has got 3142 posts. When they post their 3142nd post people say 'they have reached kilopi. The first use of the term goes back to around 2002 so there is a place, on the net at least, where the term has another meaning.
could you make the redirection optional? I was just going to edit in a link to the asteroid page when I found the new redirect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blacklobster ( talk • contribs) .
What part of Moldova are you from? --anon
Why would you wanna know? :) Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 23:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I am just curious. Where do deleted articles go? Are they sent to the "bit bucket"? Or are they hidden somewhere so that they can be brought back, if circumstances change? Remember "Direct logic" which was deleted a while back. The reason it was deleted was that it was Original Research by its author and had not been published in an important journal. What if it were subsequently published? Could the article be resurrected or would it have to be written again from scratch? JRSpriggs 04:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Just a few remarks. One is that it is good if you use an edit summary when you contribute, so that it is clear to others what you changed. My second remark is that if you decide to put the {{ technical}} template on an article, you could as well visit its talk page and explain as to why you think that template is justified, and what exactly is not clear to you. Thanks. You can reply here if you have comments. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 05:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
imagine the average person who has an IQ above 100 but may not have studied industrial engineering or math...it would be impossible for them to understand what linear programming is the way the article is written.
Justforasecond 05:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Vandal User:CyberSkull moved Mu-recursive function to Μ-recursive function and Mu operator to M operator. I moved the second one back, but even after I edited the redirects there are redirects from "M operator" to itself and "Talk:M operator" to itself. Would you please fix this mess. JRSpriggs 05:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you should be more careful with calling people "vandals" :) As far as that article, I moved back Μu operator to Mu operator as it looks better that way. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 06:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 02:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you work for solidworks or something?
put back the links to the open source packages, that could further people's knowledge of the subject very much, and they would be able to contribute to these packages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.169.13 ( talk • contribs)
As you're one of the people who commented about formatting/clutter on the {{ audio}} template, I'm wondering what you think of my proposal for a javascript popup instead. I fixed the "clicking on the icon goes to the image page" problem a while ago, but there is still the "overloaded interface"/"too many click targets" problem, and I'm proposing we use javascript to hide the extra links until you hover over it. You can try out the mock-up yourself by adding this to your User:Oleg Alexandrov/monobook.js:
document.write('<scr' + 'ipt type="text/javascript" src="' + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/audiopops.js' + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></scr' + 'ipt>');
This would be a site-wide change, so everyone would see it, and it safely falls back to the current design with several links on browsers without javascript. I would be happy with any kind of support, suggestions, or criticism; right now I feel like I'm talking to a wall. — Omegatron 18:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I tagged a series of articles for WP:Phys yesterday, including both their class and importance, but a number of them have appeared as unassessed on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Physics articles by quality. This seems to have been caused by me using the lowerclass "start" class, rather than "Start". I'm guessing that this is either a small bug with your fetching bot (not recognizing the lower case start), or else a limitation with the tagging system, and that either your bot needs a minor tweak or I need to change the classes to "Start". Could you tell me which, please? Thanks. Mike Peel 07:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, do you know anything about this Kevin Carmody? Is he even a mathematician? I can't find any eprints by him at the arXiv or at citeBase.--- CH 21:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you feel like closing on the discussion at Talk:QED (disambiguation)? I think it's been long enough. -- Trovatore 03:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Now that we have a new toolserver tool that again displays edit counts in realtime, do you think it's a good idea to add that back into Mathbot's message like it used to be? -- Rory096 05:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I had not read that. Thanks. David R. Ingham 05:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello Oleg. I noticed that Mathbot updates Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Album articles by quality statistics, and I was wondering how that worked. I would like to implement something similar for WikiProject Figure Skating. I understand that a bunch of code needs to be added to Template:WikiProject Figure Skating, but I don't know how to make a quality table automatically update. I would like the template to appear here. Could you help me? Thanks! -- Fang Aili talk 16:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you clarify how Mathbot is counting these "article class" categories? I'm a little concerned that stats like "Unassessed 120779", for the biography category, would on the face of it have required about 600 category listings-page. Hopefully that's the exception (at least until the assessment plague has covered the whole wiki with talk-page grey goo) but it seems quite a lot to be doing on a daily basis. Alai 16:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I am very slow, I just understood your message. Thank you for your message! And I just realized that not everyone is entitled to edit the articles. If everybody does it, the articles will become very messy, and confusing. Those awful behaviors were really not my intention. So I was supposed to post my comments and requests on the talk page. I hope that I am right this time. Jackzhp 00:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, I hope you enjoy your wikibreak. When you get back, I wonder if you'd be willing to have Mathbot support "by priority" categories? We've had to rename our importance categories following a "complaint" that rating living people by "importance" might cause problems. We've already switched to the new naming so I hope you will be willing to do it :) -- kingboyk 16:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Salix alba is planning to move Ordinal number to another name. Please stop him. JRSpriggs 03:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Rename "Ordinal number"? God forbid!, and also a section at
Talk:Ordinal number#Should the article really be called transfinite ordinal numbers. The opinions are divided and presently the plan seems to be stalled. JRSpriggs 07:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
As soon as all the bots are updated, RfA will have section headers, in the format "<includeonly><noin</includeonly><includeonly>clude></includeonly>====<includeonly></noin</includeonly><includeonly>clude></includeonly>'''Comments'''<includeonly><noin</includeonly><includeonly>clude></includeonly>====<includeonly></noin</includeonly><includeonly>clude></includeonly>", per consensus at WT:RFA. Please notify me when you've updated the code. Thanks, Rory096 19:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg. Long time, no talk. Well I'm still in a state of sporadic internet access. I see by your talk page that you are also on some kind of internet hiatus. So this may be a slow communication. Anyway, I've planned this since back when I was a regular, and now that it's September, it's time.
So pretty soon, it's going to be your one year anniversary as an admin at Wikipedia, which I think is a nice ripe time. I think you ought to consider bureaucratship. I say this not as a friend of yours and co-editor who enjoys working with you, and not because you're the guy who nominated me for adminship and I want to return the "favor", but rather because of the activity I've seen from you in at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. I feel like there are bureaucrats who favor a lot more instruction creep and lots of solutions floating around looking for a problem, and we need more bcrats who keep things grounded. I appreciate your frank yet polite way of offering criticisms, a skill which I've yet to master.
I would be willing at some point (don't expect promptness) to collect these thoughts into a nomination, though I gather that normally people self-nominate for bcratship. What are your thoughts on it? - lethe talk + 02:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
There was a noticeable drop in the activity on math related pages while you were away :-) - Fredrik Johansson 12:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Oleg -
I noticed that you have previously commented on Krein space. Would you mind taking a look at my recent edit to see if it helps or hurts? In particular, I'm not sure whether I did the right thing in adding directions that are null in both inner products and the quotient (coset) space construction. This comes up in the application with which I am familiar ( BRST Quantization, which I am not done writing yet) but may not technically be part of the Krein space idea (see talk page).
Michael K. Edwards 02:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg. I was looking at the contributions page of your Mathbot and I started wondering about the time it takes the bot to process all of the jobs its does. The number of projects now using the bot seems to be increasing almost exponentially! Last month I seem to remember that the whole lot would be finished maybe by 5 am. This morning at 7:32 am (GMT) it had reached fig for Figure skating articles by quality log. Should the number of projects using the bot increase at the same rate, surely there will be a conflict with the (automated?) schedule: the bot won't have finished its jobs by the time it comes to starting the process again (midnight?).
I don't know if this is indeed a problem waiting to happen, or if you've accounted for the possibility. The immediate solution I can think of is to split the bot into two (or more) concurrent processes: 1—M and N—Z or something. I hope this is helpful to you, and I'm curious as to your thoughts in any case.
Keep up the good work by the way! :)
Cheers, -- Mal 06:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, I'm leaving for awhile in protest over some recent events. Please see my talk page for details, and please join the discussion there. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 17:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The RfA format seems to have changed yet again, and it seems to be confusing Mathbot. Could you change its setup so it places its link in the 'Automated data' section of new RfAs? -- ais523 15:06, 19 September 2006 ( U T C)
Oleg - most talk pages that go with real articles (not people talk pages) don't have this ability to start a new topic with a subject/heading like your talk page does. I haven't found the code to be able to start a new topic and I don't want to butt into a conversation.
Hints?
Rsteif 22:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg! Why doesn't "curvature" seem more clear than just "geometry", since arc is a particular type of curvature? Especially given arc's disambiguation page with a link to Arc (projective geometry), "geometry" seems rather vague (particularly since the pages for arc measure and even graph theory could be considered——albeit, a stretch——"geometry" in nature, and Arc (projective geometry) certainly is!). P=) ~Kaimbridge~ 21:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't have any objections. P=) ~Kaimbridge~ 00:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The focus seems clear to me: If you pull a piece of string between two points on a sphere or ellipsoid, , that strip of curvature is a segment of arc, its length equalling . My intent on developing the article is to focus on it being a particular type of curvature and, especially, the radius of arc, or "arcradius". The typical layman's formula for calculating short (elliptical) distances on Earth is usually the loxodromic, Pythagorean method, such as the one used by the FCC, here. In their formula, and , where is the midpoint latitude and M, N are the principal radii of curvature (in cosine multiple, binomial series expansion form, out to two terms). Using basic plane trig relationships for an infinitesimal length, where the loxodromic and orthodromic lengths and angles merge into one common length and angle ( is the globoidal——i.e., meaning spherical, as in non-elliptical, not orthodromic as opposed to loxodromic——azimuth and is longitude),
So, the FCC formula converts to:
Therefore, since ——i.e., the central angle——is the (globoidal) angular distance, then is the radius of that arc at , in the direction . Furthermore, given M, N and O, the globoidal azimuth converts to the local elliptical azimuth:
Given that this is a type of curvature, it would seem that "Arc (curvature)" is a no-brainer, but...it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong! P=) ~Kaimbridge~ 00:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, maybe that's the point of contention. The second sentence of curvature starts out, "Intuitively, Curvature is the amount by which a geometric object deviates from being flat..." which sounds like the same thing as a curve! If they are different, would an accurate analogy be "a curve is to a line, whereas curvature is to area"? M and N are usually identified as the "principal radii of curvature", but, then, they are also the "principal radii of curve" which sounds awkward (though "principal radii of arc" sounds okay). If that is the case then, yes, "Arc (curvature)" is wrong, and "Arc (curve)" would seem to be the "no-brainer" (and the distinction between "curve" and "curvature" needs to be emphasized). P=) ~Kaimbridge~ 10:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, alright then, I'd agree the article's——and my——interpretation falls under the "differentiable curve" meaning. Looking around further, there is another stub, plane curve, which could (should?) be merged with this one——"Arc (plane curve)"?——as I think "arc", in this context, could also be defined as "a segment of a closed, plane curve"(?). Within this theme, "radius of arc" and its equation can be developed. ~Kaimbridge~ 19:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to inform you that it seems to be some sort of log in process required to make Mathbot's tool work right now. MoRsΞ 22:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, your mathifying of circle of convergence section is a good idea, but at present you've inserted some typos. Could you take a look? Thanks Rich 18:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
yeah thanks, now i know what to do, use { }. I'd tried to fix it but couldn't so I notified you. As for the weird dashes, I'm sure Wikipedians 50 yrs hence will have far more to laugh at us for than that. Rich 06:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Kappa is specifically spamming inclusionist wikipedias [6] (link to example all are nearly identical) despite being asked to stop. See User_talk:Kappa#Votestacking. I think a block is in order but since I am very involved in this (basically the opposition to Kappa here) I obviously can't do it. I would therefore appreciate if you would take a look and make a decision. Thanks. JoshuaZ 02:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your intervention there. I am impressed that you managed to get Kappa to stop without using the heavy mop. JoshuaZ 03:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I am curious as to your opinion on this matter.
In referring to mathematical series, Isaac Newton used the latin plural 'seriei' many, many times throughout his Principia Mathematica.
Quite simply, a word which is both singular and plural is confusing. This is tolerated when the word is of english origin (see 'deer'), however when a word like series--which is a borrow-over from latin in any case--ignores its own plural, and we assign it the ambiguous role of standing for both singular and plural, well, there can be confusion, and it is certainly imprecise.
Based on Isaac Newton's use of this word in its authentic plural, do you agree that it provides greater precision to an article when speaking of one series versus several? I am of the opinion that it does, and its inclusion in mathematics articles would improve the readability of them as a whole, however I am curious as to your opinion. Evidently Melchoir does not share this view and is quite hostile towards the entire idea. Dbsanfte 05:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
After seeing the derivative wiki,i was pondering on one thing, Suppose f(x)={x^2 , x<2} {x^2+4 ,x>/=2} d/dx(f(x))=2x The Derivative is continuous,it is differentiable.But the function is not continuous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshaysrinivasan ( talk • contribs)
The definition of differentiable does not say that the function is continuous. You can deduce that it must be. But that is exactly what the questioner is doubting. He thought that he had a counter-example. I showed that it is not actually a counter-example. JRSpriggs 06:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I thought you might be interested in the discussion at Template talk:Please leave this line alone#Merge about merging newcomers pages -- Gareth Aus 08:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that Mathbot assumes that the article exists when adding it to the list of assessed articles. Unfortunately that may not be the case. I've found about fifty of these today, all of them in the Biographical Articles by Quality list. Could you please check whether the article exists while "scanning" it and tag the talk page with {{ db-g8}} if it doesn't, if this is possible? MER-C 05:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry for forgetting the summary fill in. -- Ulisse0 16:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Oleg. We had an interaction some months ago regarding 'logarithms.' I have now made an edit on the "sequence" page, under the "series" section of it, regarding how the terms of the series are defined, and in addition, how the series itself is defined. In a comment on that page, you indicated some uncertainty about the terms. I now agree with your expression of uncertain understanding. Please take a look at my edits if you have a moment and see if you agree with them ... and if you have someone you know to ask about the correctness of them, I'd be interested in being more certain of their validity. Thanks, KCliffer 20:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you mentioned: "Bolzano/Bozen was annexed after WWI becuase of Austria defeat, but it was not considered italian even by irredentists." Do you have a reference for this? I would agree somewhat that the Province of Trento was the upper limit of Greater Italy, but even though Bolzano-Bozen was not straight-out Italian, it was a mixed region. The character of this region has been a mix of Italian/German for centuries. take care. Taalo 22:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I see little updating of the 1.0 program assessments over the weekend - is there some sort of problem. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 08:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The page floating point needs expert attention, and such experts are extremely rare. Based on your past contributions in this or related fields, I wonder if you could take a look. William Ackerman 22:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi:
Since you have much more experience than me concerning Wikipedia, perhaps that you may help me with a problem concerning the Wikipedia page about the Fundamental theorem of Algebra. Please take a look at the third analytical proof, the one which uses the argument principle. You will see there the expression “” several times. Twice, it appears with a strange-looking minus sign as a subsript in the end. Do you know why? JCSantos 14:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Concerning this . Have you made a single edit concerning the case in question (let alone investigated it), to dismiss the proposal in such peremptory terms? -- Ghirla -трёп- 15:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This is in relation to your Mathbot's calculating of statistics (for WikiProject Films). Does your bot only support the main ratings (FA, A, GA, B, Start, Stub) or can it also support other ratings (Template, Cat, Disambig, Future, List)? I'd be very appreciative if you could answer. I didn't want to add
|- |{{ Future-Class}} || |- |{{ List-Class}} || |- |{{ Template-Class}} || |- |{{ Cat-Class}} ||
to the statistics page in case that might mess you and your bot up. Is it possible for you to do that? Cbrown1023 20:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Patrolling my watchlist takes significantly more work when people do use use edit summaries, so similar to you, when I run across someone who has made a lot of edits but does not use a summary, I like to drop a friendly request on their talk page. How often do people actually listen to you? Sometimes I fear that I am just wasting my breath because at least 75% of the time they continue not using edit summaries. My personal favourite is the registered user with over 8100 edits under his belt, but a major/minor edit summary usage of just 5%/9%. I tried leaving a polite request on his talk page, but he just deleted it (and has only made three summaries in his past fifty edits). Arg! :-( -- Kralizec! ( talk) 00:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg! Long time no see. Would you happen to know of any interesting facts for our Villarceau circles article? There's a neat animation there too. -- HappyCamper 04:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I noticed the wonderful Mathbot updates the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Mathematics articles by quality page. Could it do a similar page, but ordered by importance rather than quality? (Presumably at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Mathematics articles by importance). On a similar (but harder to implement) note, would it be possible for Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Mathematics articles by quality statistics to take the form of a table rather than two lists, so that it can easily be seen how many top-importance stubs there are?
Final point: I was planning on moving the tables of article grading WP:WP_Math/WP:1.0 into seperate pages (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0/Basics, etc.). Would this affect Mathbot's workings?
(Btw, given how multi-talented Mathbot is, would it be possible for it to do my ironing?)
Tompw 19:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Just another praise for Mathbot and a question. I can see that Mathbot updates pages like the Movies-statistics. At the Danish Wikipedia we are currently considering to implement a feature like that. I was wondering if you had any hints about how to make a bot who could take care of that one feature. I don't know if bot-owners usually share their secrets, but I'll try my luck. No matter what, Mathbot is still one of the most useful bots I have seen :-) -- Lhademmor 20:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I don't really know if
"this article does not deserve to exist.",
but
Fixed point iteration is a term used in
numerical analysis,
and
at least one editor (not me) has referred to
such an article .
I reverted because the article is a stub with a link to Fixed point (mathematics). -- Jtir 04:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually "fixed point iteration" is a technique in theoretical computer science: definition by recursion is regarded as solution of a fixed point problem g = F(g) and iterates of F converge to the fixed point. This technique has various flavors: an order theoretic one and a metric space one. -- CSTAR 06:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Despite rumours, I don't support this article, and if you look at its edit history, one of the first thing I did was to redirect it to the fixed point theorem article. Any discussion of the iteration belongs there. Loisel 15:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
hi dude, i just got a warning about editing pokemon or something and that i would be banned. i swear to god id never do anything like that. can someone be using my ip or something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.8.232.5 ( talk • contribs) .
By the way, you (Oleg) did write to User:210.8.232.5. You said "Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Oleg Alexandrov 06:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)". That was the first message left on his talk page. JRSpriggs 09:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
You might like to join us at Physics/wip where a total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess. At present we're discussing the lead paragraphs for the new version, and how Physics should be defined. I've posted here because you are on the Physics Project participant list. -- MichaelMaggs 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
You are the second user in the English Wikipedia that has reminded me to use the edit summary. I would like to know what is wrong? It is true that I am a bit lazy and I do not write anything when I make minor changes such as adding interwikis to other Wikipedias (my main work in this Wikipedia), but I think that I use it when I make an important or controversial change. Maybe I am accostumed to Catalan Wikipedia where we do not use it a lot and I should use it more in here... I would be very happy if you could tell me your point of view (and by the way, correct my English spelling). Thanks!-- SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 10:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Gentile sig.re
noto che ogni volta che qualcuno inserisce i riferimenti al libro di Giorgio Parisi "La chiave la luce e l'ubriaco" (Di Renzo Editore), nella voce di questo fisico, lei lo cancella? c'è un errore che viene fatto nell'inserimento? grazie e buon lavoro sante --unsigned
Hi, today Mathbot took International Space Station off of the Space exploration articles by quality list, even though it still has a tag. Yesterday the tag was changed from A-class to B-Class, but instead of changing the class it was removed completely from the list.. the article still shows up in Category:B-Class space exploration articles. Mlm42 14:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg,
can you give me a hint where I could find something related to the following structure:
Let E be an R-module, A \subset 2^E, B\subset 2^R, and
(Notice that while x is an element, a,b are subsets of E (sorry for the ascii-limited notation; I wrote 2^E for the power set although I hate this notation.) I'm using this structure which has remarkable properties (e.g. stable by multiplication with R(B,B) which is itself a multiplicative subset of R, lots of more if A,B are neighborhood bases of zero...)
I'm sure this must exist but I don't know where (maybe linked to ideal (ring theory), radical of an ideal, neighborhood (topology), stabilizer / little group,... (those are red links???))
PS: I'm somehow desperate about not finding this at the point I was going to post this question on talk:ideal (rng thy) (though I know WP is not a BB) when I saw a post from you there and remembered your wide-range math horizon... (don't know if U remember our discussions maybe 1 yr ago)
Thanks a lot in advance for any hint or suggesting me someone (from WP (?)) who could know more about that. — MFH: Talk 15:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Again and again someone new thinks it’s a good idea to use AWB to convert mathematics articles to Unicode, despite the firm and repeated opposition of the Wikipedia mathematics community. I weary of reverting and notifying each time it happens. If you, O Great Botmaster, have any ideas about means of future prevention, please help. -- KSmrq T 23:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I noticed today a strange listing in last night's run of the bot. This appears to list a number of marked novels that have a "Low" importance as "No-Class" it is strange in that is doesn't appear to have any consistency to it. It you need details let me know. The first this is true of in the "12 Oct" listing is Elephants Can Remember which was set as "Low" during the whole run. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 08:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Antivandalbot thinks so... Please take a look Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 08:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Please reconsider your decision on the article for deletion for this article. Sr13 19:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
This is kinda trivial but I noticed the "edit" buttons for sections 1, 2 and 3 are jammed inside the text on the User:Mathbot article, at least using my browser and my monitor. This happens, I think, when too many images are inserted into a section. Thanks for the incredible bot.-- Ling.Nut 11:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, what are your thought on my question here? Paul August ☎ 12:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
For some reason, Mathbot omitted all the B-class articles from the meteorology project assessments . I checked a few other projects and they seemed fine so I guess it was just a random error...just letting you know. - Runningonbrains 09:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
|
Thank you for contributing to my RFA. Unfortunately it failed (final tally 26/17/3). As a result of the concerns raised in my RFA, I intend to undergo coaching, get involved in the welcoming committee and try to further improve the quality of my contributions to AFD and RFA. All the best. Cynical 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC) |
I am one of the authors who worked on the article about the mathematical statistical method “berlin procedure”. You added the template which criticizes the “poor quality” of the article. I would like this article to remain in wikipedia. So maybe you could tell more concretely why you think that the article in this status is not appropriate to wikipedia. Afterwards it could be sufficiently improved. RANS 08:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it normal for the bot to be blanking Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/U.S. road transport articles by quality log or the stats page? it's done that for two days in a row. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 05:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The Old AfD thingy says I "don't have permission to access the requested object. It is either read-protected or not readable by the server." -- Rory096 00:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
diff. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 13:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Cuddly or not, it needs a bit of Proverbs 13:24, as it neglects to update Talk:List of numerical analysis topics#D: Potential searchable categories. Bad bot. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 04:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I see you removed Foxearth's RfA nom as badly formatted and unaccepted. (Technically the canditate did accept it [1] (albeit in a badly formatted/unsigned way, which got pushed down under comments by another user) However, it does remain badly formatted, which is grounds for removal from the RfA list. However, as it appears that the nominee is a relatively inexperienced user, (which would explain the formatting issues) would you mind dropping them a quick note as well? I've previously recommended to them to withdraw the RfA, so don't want them to get all the bad news from one person in case they take it the wrong way. :) Cheers, MartinRe 16:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if maybe your bot could help us with something? At WP:AfC, we have a bit of a problem with archiving, we lost the bot that did it for us. Perhaps Mathbot could help with this? ( Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Archiving_Wikipedia:Articles_for_Creation. Thanks either way, since Mathbot is just cool! -- Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 08:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, I was getting back to work on the PlanetMat project when I noticed that your conversion tool: Pmform, doesn't seem to be converting <a>, </a> tags (used to do PM internal links). Whats up? Paul August ☎ 18:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
<a id="tex2html1" href="http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/Identity2.html" name="tex2html1">category</a>
<a name="tex2html1" href="http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/Identity2.html" id="tex2html1">category</a>
Thanks ;-) Paul August ☎ 19:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Dylan Lennon/Warel nominated the article on Shohé Tanaka for deletion, and it was deleted. This rticle should not have been nominated, and certainly not actually deleted, since Tanaka was a significant figure as a music theorist, and a physicist and interesting historical character besides. I want it undeleted, and I think this shows there is something wrong with the deletion process. Why was n one who knew something about the subject contacted before the article was deleted? This is a sign of a broken system. I'd be interested in getting a list of everything Dylan Lennon nominated for deletion, and reviewing all that he has done in this department, which seems to at least skate close to vandalis, if not over the line. Gene Ward Smith 01:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For your extraordinary patience with the Dylan Lennon/WAREL incidents, I award you The Barnstar of Diligence. Isopropyl 02:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC) |
Concerning the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholesky_decomposition, "Applications" section discussing ________ Kalman filtering as an application of Cholesky decomposition.
I have been reading up on this rather extensively recently; the application is "unscented Kalman filtering," NOT "uncentered Kalman filtering." Read the "Kalman filters" page on Wikipedia for more info (I thought this would be a slam-dunk change), or check out: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/wan01unscented.html (with specific, explicit references to performing the Cholesky decomposition for arriving at the Sigma points used in unscented Kalman filtering), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unscented_Kalman_filter (the wikipedia page), http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~murphyk/Papers/Julier_Uhlmann_mar04.pdf (also with reference to using Cholesky decomposition as stable means of finding sigma points; page 406, footnote 6).
Any evidence that "uncentered" is the correct term? I am making the change again, to "unscented," and please justify a further change with citations, etc. The only Google result I found for "uncentered Kalman filter," for example, was this erroneous Wikipedia entry.
Appreciation, insignificant1
Hi Oleg. No worries. I didn't notice the late discussion about the issue. Cheers -- Szvest 19:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Hi Oleg, your mathbot is excellent in finding all the classifications in the WP:Chem wikiproject. I regularly maintain the list of grouped classifications (focussing on the projects goals instead of just listing them) in the project's worklist, and therefore find the log file of the mathbot very useful. Now, yesterday, I thought that perhaps mathbot didn't run, as there is no notification on the logpage, although I assume that it did do the scanning. Hence my question:
Nice, thanks! So I have another question, if I may: can you add a some counting statistics on the large table, viz.
Even if this can't be done, thanks for your attention. If it can, I'll use that info for the WP:Chem statistics. Wim van Dorst ( Talk) 15:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC).
Hello, Oleg Alexandrov. I was wondering, was your decision to message me brought about by an instance where I botched up while editing an article somewhere, perhaps? Thanks for the tips! - vedace 01:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Mr. Alexandrov. I do not think your removal of my change to the logarithm article is as useful as my change itself was. Although I agree with you about not using unnecessary wording, the part I added was not entirely unnecessary. Rather, it corrected an inaccuracy in the definition of b^n. Now a further user has changed it again to something still not as accurate as what I put in (see below). I will not change it again on the main page, to avoid repeated back-and-forth. However, I would like to make the case here to suggest you change it to something more accurate, suggested below. Here is the edit I had put in:
... b^n means multiplying b by itself a number of times, using it as a factor in this multiplication n times ...
You changed it back to the original to say
" ... b^n means multiplying b by itself n times ...".
This is not correct, as I pointed out on the talk page associated with the article. If you multiply b by itself one time, you get b*b = b^2, not b^1. If you multiply b by itself 2 times, you get b*b*b = b^3, not b^2. It may be that the English is subtle here, especially for a non-native English speaker. However, this version is clearly inaccurate.
Michael Hardy has now changed it to
" ... b^n means b is multiplied n times ..."
This, I think, is unclear, and still able to be interpreted as inaccurate in the same way the original was. If b is multiplied two times, it could easily mean b*b*b - that has two multiplications, whereas b*b only has one.
If you still object to my initial language, I propose this, shorter than my original change, but still more accurate than either revision of what I put:
" ... b^n means multiplying b by itself, using it as a factor n times ..."
Please consider making this change, or proposing a better one that does not have the original problem I pointed out.
Thanks, Ken Cliffer (I am a scientist, with a Ph.D. in anatomy, but now work as an educational consultant, currently developing math videos. This issue came up in our presentation of exponentiation. I was happy to see that the Wikipedia article on exponentiation did not have this problem.)
Thanks for your comments on ∇ & del, guess I was just getting lazy, but will do better from now on! -- Iantresman 16:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Just curious, why have a bot which creates a list to duplicate a category? Just zis Guy you know? 08:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
But it is not just one category. The list of mathematics articles is generated from the lists at the list of mathematics categories. There are 700 mathematics related categories at the moment, and growing. Are you saying that looking up additions/removals/changes from 700 categories is just as easy as doing it on a list?
About having it in the Wikipedia namespace, I don't know. I think the lists are fine where they are. There are plenty of lists in the main namespace, and I don't see a good reason to move the math lists from there. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 14:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg,
About compositions of rotations: you wrote
If however one performs rotation around a point (axis) followed by rotation around another point (axis), the overall movement may be a translation rather than a rotation.
I think our editing reverts have been because we agree but have opposite points of view: you want to point out that two rotations may be a translation (or rotation), but I want to point out that two rotations in general do not represent a translation or rotation.
Thus, perhaps
If however one performs rotation around a point (axis) followed by rotation around another point (axis), the overall movement may be a translation rather than a rotation (but in general is neither).
216.232.222.122 15:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC), formerly MrMoto, but this account seems to have been eaten up. :(
Thank you KSmrq. Would be nice to have this somewhere. Maybe not the full formulas in the general purpose rotation article, but at least the ideas. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 19:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I have created a new page on fine topology (as in classical potential theory), but as the title "fine topology" already seems to be taken by a page about general topology (i.e. 'finer topology' rather than "THE fine topology"), I have called my page "classical fine topology" - seems like there ought to be a better solution - any ideas? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madmath789 ( talk • contribs) .
Hello Oleg,
Sorry for occupying you but I am quite new to this so your guidance is greatly appreciated.
You have recently deleted our external link on the fractions wiki page with the explanation that is is an irrlevant link.
While I respect your opinion, I am trying to understand what the criteria are.
In essence Skillage.net is a pilot program. I have tutored many students of various age and grade levels and have discovered that thay are lacking some very basic math skills. With skillage.net While there are thousands of sites out there that provide the ability to practice (or purchase practice help, tutoring, etc) we are seeking to build a framework that provides a comprehensive skill building curriculum with a common look and feel.
To make a long sory short, what I am wondering is what your criteria are for deciding to keep Kwiznet as an external reference you rate skillage.net non-suitable.
Thanx for any guidance you can provide.
Regards,
Achim
Hi, I understand why you might be upset with Gene but could you lay it down? Both of you are making constructive comments on real number and it looks silly when you two make shots across each other's bow. I think if you stop, he will stop as well. Thanks. -- 127. *. *. 1 13:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
For your information, re your revert on path integral: This text has been added before, and I removed it at that time. No idea what's going on here. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 04:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi!
This is me who added symmetric derivative thing.
Actually I wasn't talking about definitions, but about correct calculating of derivative [you were right in your comment when mentioned that it's applicable for numeric stuff]. I didn't find anything about it on wiki, so I think it should be added something like that:
If:
1. There exists left-derivative;
2. There exists right-derivative;
3. They are equal,
than derivative can be calculated more precisely with following formula: .
How about that? --anon
I have to admit the Inward normal picture was not good-looking. I thank you for admitting that I had a point. I also thank you for inviting comments.
As an Engineer, my concept of a surface, closed or not, is a barrier, the outside is at which I am directly looking. The normal coming toward me is an outward normal on the outside surface. The normal going away from me but terminating at the "outside" of the surface is the inward normal.
The invisible (to me) side of the surface is the "lnside" of the surface. The normal starting at the inside and going away from me is the other "outward" normal. If the outward normal I am looking at satisfies the "right hand rule" for an orientable surface then the "other" outward normal must satisfy the "left hand rule". The "inward" normal on each surface is the exact negative of the "outward" normal.
If normals penetrate the surface, the "inward" normal on the "outside" surface changes to an "outward" normal on the "inside" surface. All definitions are then jumbled up.
Thank You user:subhash15
Hi Oleg,
Could you please stop Mathbot from updating the good articles talk page with a list of missing articles?
The lists no longer seem to contain any useful information [2] [3] [4] [5]. Possibly because of a change in the format of the good articles page. Plus most maintenance of the good articles page is now done by the GAAuto script.
Your bot did precede the GAAuto script so thank you for your early work.
Cedars 05:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering about how the administrators can tell whether an article is being protected from vandals and foolish editors. Is there a way to determine how many editors are watching an article and how many of them are active. Or even exactly who they are? Can you find articles which have less than three active editors watching them? If not, perhaps Mathbot or something like it could search for such articles and make a list. JRSpriggs 04:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Just curious:
Did you created MathBot? If so, how did you do so? Thanks in advance.
MoleculeUpload 02:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Again thank you. - MoleculeUpload 02:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Very funny the link beneath your page ;)
There are some people that have not yet understood (or they have forgotten) that the purpose of science is to provide efficient and utterly compatible informations to interact with the reality. What model do they propose instead of gravity ? That of a Supreme Intelligence, who Works in a Mysterious Way. What a very useful model ! ;) That's not science, just teleology.
Almeo 09:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello, its me again.
What type of bot do you feel Wikipedia needs? I am interested in doing whatever I can, but I want to make sure that the Wikipedia community is O.K. with any bot I run.
Thank you! - MoleculeUploadBot 15:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. - NoUser 15:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The new article looks great. Thanks for working on the mathematical notation, and also moving it to singular form.
I don't have enough knowledge to write an article on the topic you suggested - you are more qualified to do so anyway, seeing that you are a PhD student in math! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elb2000 ( talk • contribs) .
I work with Windows XP computers. How can I write a bot with the computer as it is (or with only a few updates)? I already have Microsoft Visual Basic (5.0) installed on it. I hope I am not bugging you to much about WikiBots, but I have never done anything quite like it. Thanks! - MoleculeUpload 12:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. - NoUser 20:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems Mathbot has blanked his pages of mathematical redlinks for some reason. I'm not sure if there's a reason, or if he's just spitting sparks and spinning in circles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Originalbigj ( talk • contribs) .
Hi Oleg, and thank you for your thoughtful comments in my request for adminship! With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance ... Please let me know what you think! Thanks again, and thanks as well for your efforts with MathBot. Too bad about him not making Admin though! I look forward to working with you on WP 1.0 and other things in future... + + Lar: t/ c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I just downloaded a version of Perl for Windows XP. Where could I find a decent guide for learning the langauge (I am thinking of writing my bot in Perl). Thank you! - MoleculeUpload 19:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we would have lasted much longer. - lethe talk + 22:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I wrote another proposed definition on talk:logarithm, but I thought since you were involved with that, you'd want to take a look before I screw things up. Fresheneesz 23:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Reviewing my User talk: page, I realised that I never responded to several edits from over a year ago in a discussion that we were having then. I don't even remember why I stopped corresponding then, but I suppose that it's only fair to warn you that this happens to me on the Internet sometimes when Real Life becomes too pressing, and online activities get pushed back further and further and ... well, I'm sorry.
I don't think that I have anything to criticise you about on this now. But for the record (not that it'll be a very precise record after a year):
Well, better late than never, as they say; I was rude to you, and I'm sorry. -- Toby Bartels 21:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this is the third or fourth time that I created an article and forgot to categorise it, and you fixed it. It's great, though! Thanks for catching them, and I promise I'll try better to remember about categories :-)
RandomP 21:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg. I'm testing out using MathBot for physics articles, and I know that some WikiProjects also use the importance column, e.g. Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Chemistry_articles_by_quality. Does MathBot sort by importance in some way, or does it simply maintain those labels once they're added by hand to the tables? -- SCZenz 04:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg. thanks for your guide!
ses
Oleg,
I am putting together a guide for using Mathbot for WP:1.0 work. As I understand it, projects can simply add a new subcategory tree at Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments without telling you, and Mathbot will faithfully generate tables, a log and statistics to order. Is this correct? Or do you need to know that a project is adding themselves to the list? It seems that several groups have already added themselves in quietly, is this OK? If the bot can handle all this without needing to know that would be wonderful. If people need to ask your permission, please let me know ASAP, as we are going to be contacting WikiProjects again very soon. Thanks again for your wonderful work! Walkerma 04:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I missed this User:Jaranda/Requests for adminship/Mathbot, I would have had a few choice words to add. Paul August ☎ 16:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I will. By the way whatever happened to all your nice awards on your user page? Paul August ☎ 18:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you knew anything about picture licenses, and what licences a picture must have to be on wikipedia. Another user just told me that Image:SkyTran Seattle2.jpg doesn't have the right permissions to be on wikipedia (although it does have permission from the owner to be on wikipedia). The guy that brought this to my attention said that "the image would need to be relesed under the GFDL, creative commons attribution, creative commons attribution-ShareAlike or released into the public domain". I have doubts about this requirment, and I would think that many fair-use pictures on wikipedia don't adhere to that. What do you think about this? Fresheneesz 23:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone moved Kronecker limit formula to Kronecker Limit Formula in the middle of my attempts to write the article, and my attempt to revert this cleanly didnt work; it seems to require deleting pages. Could you sort this out please? Thanks, R.e.b. 14:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a new wikiproject covering about 250 articles, almost all of which seem to be in a stub or start stage. Project formation was prompted by {{ WPCD}} tagging. See here for the project's article assessment format. It includes rating of importance to the project. Any pointers or advice you can offer would be appreciated. -- Paleorthid 16:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
0<k<1 ;
,
than what is the value of ?
Answer is but I couldnat get how...
All I got is ; than?
Thanx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.98.51.185 ( talk • contribs) 20:25, June 11, 2006.
There was recently a change to template:RfA making the sections bold using "; Comment" instead of "'''Comment'''" (see WT:RFA for discussion) Since Mathbot needs to recognize which section is the comments section to place the edit summary thing, I have reverted for now, until it can support this. Let me know when it can do that, or just revert the template yourself. :) --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rory096 ( talk • contribs) .
I wrote some stuff on Calculus of Variations in May, and now discover that the tail end was deleted by an unidentifed user on May 23. I notice that you tried to contact this person, but I saw no response. Anyhow, this user claimed that my version of the inhomogeneous wave equation was incorrect, and accordingly deleted a section. Before getting into a tit for tat battle with unknown persons, I'd like your suggestions. Check it out: the wave equation I gave is generally accepted. It may be that my contibutions are opaque, but that is another matter. Donludwig 16:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
My objective is to provide an intuitive introduction to Hamilton-Jacobi theory.
Donludwig
16:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Surface Normal Outward Normal Left and Right hand rules
Re: Article Surface Normal
Dear Dr. Alexandrov,
The word "outward" was edited out of the caption of the image with the advice to stay away from that adjective. However S. P. Timoshenko, recognized as the father of Engineering Elasticity, in his book Theory of Elasticity uses the symbol "N" to represent "outward normal to the surface of a body" The images in the book showing normals are exactly identical to the image in the article.
If an outward normal is to be recognized, shouldn't an inward normal be also recognized? The inward normal vector represents a pressure
If one of the two normals is determined by the Right-hand rule, isn't the other normal, in the opposite direction, uniquely determined by the Left-hand rule?
I have also copied this to Smrq. Could you kindly respond? Subhash 01:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Subhash15/Trial2"
JA: Hi, could you help sort out the continuing tangles at Propositional calculus? First there was that improper name change last month, and I let it go because the user who did it seemed fairly competent and added some good stuff, but now the word "logic" seems to be inviting anonymous users to take the article out of the mathematical logic designation and add any sort of half-baked exposition that they can cook up. I don't know my way around the procedures well enough to keep dealing with sort of stuff. Much appreciated, Jon Awbrey 05:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey Oleg, it seems that the link to the AfD script in WP:AFD/Old is no longer active. Is your account no longer active at that address? Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I re-added the attribution to Image:Locus_Curve.jpg on this page, because it is required according to the license. It doesn't seem like the best image anyway, so perhaps someone more knowledgable than I about the subject could create a replacement image that does not require attribution. -- Gnewf 05:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Just a reminder, it is good if you use an edit summary when you contribute, it helps others understand what you change. Thanks. You can reply here if you have comments. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The preview button is a good thing too. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, could you please include the classification results for the wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting, using the {{ WikiProject Scouting}} template with class and importance rating. The wikiproject is currently starting on the use of classification, and would gladly be included in your excellent mathbot counting. Regards, Wim van Dorst ( Talk) 20:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC).
Oleg, the edit summary line. What do we put in the edit summary bar? Just a phrase about the changes made?
Thanks, Billy Hathorn —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billy Hathorn ( talk • contribs) .
It seems we've finally broken past 10,000 assessed articles. We have—thanks, in no small part, to your programming skills and willingness to devote your valuable time to this project—achieved the first steps of what may become the semi-mythical article validation system that everyone always talks about. We—as Wikipedians—are in your debt. Kirill Lokshin 05:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I just want to say thank you for your help and speedy edit at Logarithmically convex function. The article has improved greatly in a few minutes, after both mine and your edits. ;) -- Clearcontent 02:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks you you amendment to our category - We " Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels" are gearing up to get envolved with the WP:1.0]] teams assessment approach - who do we talk to - and how do we proceed? I know you might not be the person but you obviously have an interest / envolvement so I thought I'd ask :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 07:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Just seen that there are some automated pages in place - however I needed to correct the link to our discussion forum which you might like to know about - unlike what was there it should be Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum#Version 1.0 Editorial Team cooperation. I changed one page only to notice it was on an obviously automatically generated page deeper in. Also that page had the project as Wikipedia:WikiProject Novel when it should read Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels. Ok - thanks for all you help. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 15:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll use your edit summary bar, but aren't all edits recorded, that you can see the change I've done just by clicking a link? And surely someone could lie, or exaggerate, or be mistaken in the bar?
//// Pacific PanDeist * 02:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
//// Pacific PanDeist * 02:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Edit summaries are good as they show up on the watchlist and you don't need to click on links to see what changed. Besides, the intent of one's edits is not always clear from the edits themselves, or at least it would take more time that way. So, using an edit summary is a good practrice.
About the 9.999.. see proof that 0.999... equals 1. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
//// Pacific PanDeist * 04:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
It is not my work it is User:Ktims-- Jaro.p 11:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I created a chart of admins by percentile, but I'm wondering should I call group nine "admins between the 80th and 90th percentile" or "admins between the 10th and 20th" percentile? Are there firm rules about which direction you start from? Thanks, NoSeptember 15:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Could you have a look at this edit, and perhaps other edits by the same editor? It looks like original research. I've a flight to catch (will be away for a week), so I can't do it myself. Cheers. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 03:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Howdy, I am aware of the Edit Summary, but tend not to use it when I think it would not add anything. Also, I usually compare versions using the history, to insure that what is described is accurate. In the case that I think you are referring to (e), I deleted an external link that seemed, to me, to be inappropriate. Of course, other people might have different opinions on the appropriateness.
Which leads to my question: you reinstated the link ("Scales of e"). What was your reasoning?
Kind wishes, Daphne A 18:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled " 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.
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 02:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear oleg, How can u delete that when i have given reference to it. If it is not formatted correctly some other wikipedian will do that. I think thats the way wikipedia works. Bharatveer 15:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Pls explain which information is incorrect. Bharatveer 16:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Greetings Oleg Alexandrov, I've just noticed your reverted Tnavbar TfD and from that I discovered your commentary addressed to the user who was somewhat blindly applying it. I've responded to that user myself in light of my own concerns in this regard. Thanks for reverting your TfD. :-) ← Netscott→ 18:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Eskog feels that January 2007 and July 15, 2067 are not speedy candidates. As one of the admins taking actions against other dates by User:Jose and Ricardo, I was wondering whether you want to further comment. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
You edited the article about FATS ( foreign affiliate trade statistics) saying it wasnt about statistics.
You don't know the topic. This is about statistics. --unsigned
-- istia 01:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
-- istia 09:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear Oleg,
if I have time, I might try to include more stuff on Pade Approximants.
Thanks for the invitation
Regards
DerHannes 11:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
..."I like she topologists." -- Oleg.
If you like, I can set you up with one. :-) -- C S (Talk) 16:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Could you change the program a bit to include noncapitalized classes in the lists. For example class=b and class=B both work on the discussion page but only class=B works on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Film articles by quality/1. The same goes for class=start and class=Start and class=stub and class=Stub. Andman8 17:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The natural numbers ARE the union of all inductive sets. So what if it's a complicated definition, it's THE definition and you shouldn't dumb it down for the masses. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia after all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.127.24.25 ( talk • contribs) 21:24, July 7, 2006 (UTC)
The bot count of projects is wrong. There are 32 projects, not 30. Rlevse 22:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
... due to a planned outage of the computer network the bot lives on. Should be back in around 16 hours. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 04:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for that suggestion about disabling minor edit by default. It has really changed how I think about editing and has encouraged me to put in descriptive edit summaries. I'm not sure about other people, but I truly appreciate a person willing to give constructive advice =D -- mboverload @ 00:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there a way my
custom look... can be mantained while the bot still runs? --
Shane (
talk/
contrib)
03:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
hello, I need to solve a differential equation, yet I am not sure how to go about it. Could you help? it is: I thought about using (y=e^λt), but it does not seem to work -- could you help me? Thank you -- DragonFly31 09:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
That's it! i'm looking to solve it through the method of undertermined coefficients; but I have no idea how to go about it. Could you give me a way to solve it using this technique? Cheers-- DragonFly31 12:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)-- 195.6.25.118 12:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I was teasing Oleg because he said something similar to Lethe and myself. See the section "Help?" above. In the edit summary of his 11:07, 12 June 2006 edit, Oleg said "Thanks Lethe and JRSpriggs. I guess instead of an encyclopedia we are becoming a free help for people who can't do their homework. :)". JRSpriggs 04:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thank for the help -- I've actually got it now-- DragonFly31 07:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mr. Alexandrov, I was wondering if you could explain what mathbot's output means? For instance, I insert my own username as input and receive the output: "99% for major edits and 65% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace." What do the 99% and 65% indicate? I couldn't find any explanation at User:Mathbot. Thanks, Kasreyn 23:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks, long overdue I think, for your amazing work in automating the collection of statistics and metadata by/from WikiProjects. If you had said that by mid-July the bot would be crawling through 50,000 articles, with almost 19,000 assessed, I would never have believed it! Projects are signing on faster than we can contact them! I think once it is established, it will allow us to see across much of Wikipedia and easily find the best/most important articles in each area. All of Wikipedia will be grateful to you, I'm sure. Thanks, Walkerma 05:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC
thanks for the tip on the correct case. Ste4k 23:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
There has been a long discussion here about the use of the Mathbot quality and importance rating system for Wikiprojects. I think we have convinced the originator of the delete proposal that the Mathbot rating system is pretty much a feature of the Wikipedia Wikiproject landscape and isn't going to go away anytime soon.
However, he/she has raised an issue that is worth considering. The issue is that rating an article's importance is inherently a POV statement that is open to debate and contentiousness. As a compromise, we are thinking of using the word "priority" instead of "importance". On the one hand, this seems like a pretty silly exercise in semantics. However, if this will make people happy, it's worth considering.
We discussed just having the bot change from "importance" to "priority" but that would require convincing the editors of 42 projects that use the Mathbot rating system to make this change.
Faced with a choice of "A" or "B", we are now saying "Both! At our discretion!"
So, the proposal would be that Mathbot could be modified to look for "priority" as well as "importance". The output could then be parameterized to output whatever metric the project template wishes to output. Thus, one project could specify "importance" and "quality" while another could specify "priority" and "quality".
Questions to you:
Thanks for considering this request.
-- Richard 19:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
They have been at it all day...trying to add links to encyclopedia dramatica since I am on their mainpage...the individual is just trolling. No one at Wikipedia has to tolerate persoanl defamation, not me and not you. Reverting me again will be the same as endorsing their attempts at disruption.-- MONGO 06:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Look dude, I am most definitely not playing with you.-- MONGO 06:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello Oleg,
Thanks for recently going over the hypernumbers page and cleaning it up, I appreciate. There is one concern about the categories they are in, in fact I'm not that sure myself, either. You have removed them from the category Category:Numbers, which I want to revert, since Category:Numbers is the single category where I stronly feel they ought to be in. As for the others, I'd be glad for any comment:
Category:Abstract algebra: I would leave this category.
Category:Hyperbolic geometry: Probably I'll take it out. People looking for hyperbolic geometry may not immediately want to look at hypernumbers. Instead, they may want to look at quaternionic or split-complex systems first, from which there are existing links to hypernumbers.
Category:Nonassociative algebra: Most hypernumber arithmetic is non-associative, so it may be of interest for people looking for this topic. I feel that hypernumbers fall into this category, even though there are some types that are associative.
As for Category:Octonions, Category:Quaternions, and Category:Sedenions, maybe we want to take hypernumbers back out from these categories; while hypernumbers contain several quaternion, octonion, and sedenion types, hypernumbers as a whole do not fall into any of these categories. Hypernumbers are rather an extending concept, and I'll make sure they're properly referenced from the respective pages.
Therefore, I'll change the categories for now to Category:Numbers, Category:Abstract algebra, and Category:Nonassociative algebra. Please let me know (on my talk page or e-mail at jens@prisage.com ) if there is a better way of categorizing them.
Thanks, Jens
Koeplinger 20:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It might be helpful to increase the number of discussions that are directly linked when the the number gets low, from 10 to 15 or 20, so we don't have to scroll through 200 to find a handful. — Centrx→ talk • 23:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi!
Can you please erase this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illustration_of_a_low-discrepancy_sequence
I merged it with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-discrepancy_sequence
as requested.
Thanks,
Diego
Sorry about that. I got into a groove after a while, and I missed a few things that I should've caught. And apparently I've totally screwed up what a bad link was...I'm going to make sure that's not what I'm dealing with in the future. I promise I'll be more careful with what I'm doing in the future, I'm still trying to get a handle on what it can do. (I've only used AWB 3 times prior to tonight.)-- Toffile 03:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that you're an admin and I've been seeing you involved in AWB a lot. Could you possibly go over and approve the people applying for AWB privileges? My sock account (for spellchecking and repetitive edits) is one of them. Thanks, Alphachimp talk 17:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
(I'm posting this at both Arthur's and Oleg's talk page; my apologies for the redundancy.) I wonder if you might take a quick look at this AfD. I think keep to be in order, inasmuch as Wilkinson's polynomial is, I think, notable, and inasmuch as, though unsourced and perhaps not altogether accurate, the article isn't wholly unsalvagable, but the discussion would surely benefit from the insinuation of someone better-versed in numerical analysis than I. Thanks in advance for any guidance you might be able to provide at the AfD or the article's talk page... :) Joe 04:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Can you please explain this reversion in more detail at talk:Linux?
To me that note is very distracting and not very helpful. People looking for GNU only will not type GNU/Linux, and the relationship between GNU and Linux is explained at the correct place in the article. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 04:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
On the "Novel articles by quality" log I now find working with the page increasingly difficult due to it's growing size. Can I suggest that this page is separated out into it's component days. This would mean something like "Novel articles by quality log" would be a overall page of links to "Novel articles by quality log for 2006-07-25" or somesuch. Then we could get to work with a far smaller file and load lead data, reducing the server load.
I would also suggest that all the other subject logs should take an identical approach. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 10:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Now that he has vandalized Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics, I think that it is about time that he was blocked!!!!! JRSpriggs 05:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The da Vinci Barnstar | |
Mathbot rocks! evrik 01:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC) |
if you have a problem with my edits, please refrain from whole sale revert. Instead, edit. Because, wikipedia grows by piece-wise contribution, and that is the gist of its success. In my complex number edit which i spend quite some effort over 10 or so edits, i have at least corrected one technical error and added few info that are not there or ambiguous. I think you've been following my tail for some reason. (we first “met” probably over a year ago) I know what you want from me. You want me to prioritize the political or bureaucratical process over contributing content on wikipedia. That itself is questionable, but in any case should not be forced onto everyone. Xah Lee 09:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Oleg for the reversion of Mobius transformation - I think it was the best thing to do :-) Madmath789 16:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 05:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you had made some of the initial contributions to the Boris Galerkin article. The article has a cleanup request and I have done some cleanup, but it is still not close to perfect. I would very much appreciate it, if you could have a look at the article. Bfg 14:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I liked it better as a redirect. Would there be any objection to killing the redirect from 24601 to 24601 (number)? (I should check Project Mathematics more often.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I moved the examples as I think that they were long an relatively technical, I saw that that had been done in Integral (examples) so I followed the naming convention in use there. It would be better if either Integral (examples) was called Examples of integrals or we kept the Boundary value (examples) name, I would do not mind. I saw other people on the talk page asking if the examples were too much and I think three in an article this size was. I added wordy examples so I hope that compensates. I just thought I should explain myself to you as another maths editor. Rex the first talk | contribs 09:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Gosh, this is the fourth barnstar for working on WP:1.0. That is way, way behind schedule; as far as I can tell we have 53 projects at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index for the moment (so 49 more barnstars to go :)
Seriously, I am pleased. It appears that the WP1.0 is much more important to people than I thought, and I am happy my script is found useful. Thanks. :) Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 15:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The da Vinci Barnstar | |
The da Vinci Barnstar is awarded to Oleg Alexandrov/Mathbot for the bot's excellent design and Mathbot's tool. Gray Porpoise 16:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
Oleg,
My research in the fractiona part function and some other discrete functions dates back to 1996. It is the only available reasearch about the representation of some discrete functions in terms of elementary functions. Wolfram company, the publisher of Mathematica adopted the result that the derivative of fractional part. This has been published by me some months ago in the mathematics forums.
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
When this last complained about edit summaries, it was using the link edit summary, which is currently red for cross-namespace redirect reasons ( WP:RFD's likely to have a few at any given moment if you want to see the arguments). If you run it for this purpose again, could you change it to link to Wikipedia:edit summary (possibly piped) instead? -- ais523 16:42, 3 August 2006 ( U T C)
You are from also from Moldova? Then I shall let you cross. I am new with the encyclopedia, if you want to help me that would be appreciated. --anon
Hi Oleg. The bot will need to be told to ignore the above categories. They simply duplicate the content of the other categories, excepty they are ordered by class rather than by Project. They were only partly used so I have spent a lot of time populating and reorganising them. Cheers. -- kingboyk 10:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I know your bot runs off a set of categries and keeps them empty as per a new task of identifing old empty categories that should be deleted i would like a list of the cats your bot keeps empty. please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approvals#BetacommandBot_expansion_of_task your assitance would be welcomed. Betacommand 18:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure you're aware of it, but it's on AfD. I don't know your mathematical field, but perhaps you can find some notability? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I have changed my preferences as you've suggested to warn my before placing a summary-free edit. I have never played around much for preferences and was not aware of this feature. Thank you for letting me know of this useful option, and thanks in advance for your support vote. Andrew Levine 23:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to dump this on you, but when you get a chance would you take a look at the recent contributions of User:Ati3414 and form your own opinion as to the correct course of action, if any? -- Trovatore 17:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
hi just wanted to know what is wrong with my change to the complex numbers article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.216.229 ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 2006 August 10
I haven't seen how you bot works, but it seems to me that it should be easy to construct logs pages under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels pages by category, no? To be concrete, I was starting to dream up an assessment system for the fledgling Wikipedia: WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire (this is a series of fantasy novels), only to have all "our" pages subsumed under the Wikipedia: WikiProject Novels, including it's spiffy assessment system. What I would like now would be a table of only the pages organised under the Category:A Song of Ice and Fire, but with their Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels quality scales. This would help us make a more focussed contribution and avoid the need to have two parallel assessment systems. What is more, this seems to be a factorisation that other projects would benefit from. All assuming that you only have to add logic corresponding to "and requestedCategory isIn category(currentpage)" to your code somewhere, otherwise it's too much hassle. Arbor 10:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I saw
this. We would like the same list for
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medical Genetics. Could you help please?
NCurse
work
13:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
As the creator of the project and all Indonesian Wikipedians, thank you for updating the article ratings! We really appreciate it. Take care -- Imo eng 03:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks so much for voting, Oleg Alexandrov! Thanks so much for your support vote on my
request for adminship! With a final vote count of (82/5/0), it succeeded, and I'm now an administrator! I am thrilled with the overwhelming positive support from the community, and sincerely thank you once again for taking your time to voice your opinion. Feel free to contact me with any comments/suggestions in the future!— Mets501 ( talk) 03:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC) |
Sorry for the long message, ahahahah. Imo eng 11:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Mboverload is abusing AWB. He is "correcting" the spelling of words without making sure that the corrected version is, in fact, correct. He corrected a spelling to "iimmediately" (extra "i") and another to "unanimouss" (extra "s"). Please do something. JRSpriggs 05:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg. I think today's run might have crashed once it got to the Biography articles. It's not been heard from for several hours. Perhaps if you're around you could check and if that's the case skip Bio and do the others? Sorry in advance if our mass tagging has caused the problem. -- kingboyk 15:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
You said, "Other recent worrisome issues are her recent creation of a list of Wikipedians who voted oppose at a request for adminship." Just to let you know, that isn't really true ... without getting into specifics, let me say that the addition of those names from the RFA were spurious and that there were already a sizeable number of names on the list before that RFA ever began. The list itself wasn't about RFA activities. -- Cyde Weys 17:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, what happened to the Kilopi entry?
I seem to get redirected to asteroids.
there is an astronomy forum
http://www.bautforum.com/ (forum for badastronomy.com) where the term 'kilopi' referes to when a member(poster) has got 3142 posts. When they post their 3142nd post people say 'they have reached kilopi. The first use of the term goes back to around 2002 so there is a place, on the net at least, where the term has another meaning.
could you make the redirection optional? I was just going to edit in a link to the asteroid page when I found the new redirect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blacklobster ( talk • contribs) .
What part of Moldova are you from? --anon
Why would you wanna know? :) Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 23:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I am just curious. Where do deleted articles go? Are they sent to the "bit bucket"? Or are they hidden somewhere so that they can be brought back, if circumstances change? Remember "Direct logic" which was deleted a while back. The reason it was deleted was that it was Original Research by its author and had not been published in an important journal. What if it were subsequently published? Could the article be resurrected or would it have to be written again from scratch? JRSpriggs 04:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Just a few remarks. One is that it is good if you use an edit summary when you contribute, so that it is clear to others what you changed. My second remark is that if you decide to put the {{ technical}} template on an article, you could as well visit its talk page and explain as to why you think that template is justified, and what exactly is not clear to you. Thanks. You can reply here if you have comments. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 05:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
imagine the average person who has an IQ above 100 but may not have studied industrial engineering or math...it would be impossible for them to understand what linear programming is the way the article is written.
Justforasecond 05:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Vandal User:CyberSkull moved Mu-recursive function to Μ-recursive function and Mu operator to M operator. I moved the second one back, but even after I edited the redirects there are redirects from "M operator" to itself and "Talk:M operator" to itself. Would you please fix this mess. JRSpriggs 05:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you should be more careful with calling people "vandals" :) As far as that article, I moved back Μu operator to Mu operator as it looks better that way. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 06:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 02:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you work for solidworks or something?
put back the links to the open source packages, that could further people's knowledge of the subject very much, and they would be able to contribute to these packages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.169.13 ( talk • contribs)
As you're one of the people who commented about formatting/clutter on the {{ audio}} template, I'm wondering what you think of my proposal for a javascript popup instead. I fixed the "clicking on the icon goes to the image page" problem a while ago, but there is still the "overloaded interface"/"too many click targets" problem, and I'm proposing we use javascript to hide the extra links until you hover over it. You can try out the mock-up yourself by adding this to your User:Oleg Alexandrov/monobook.js:
document.write('<scr' + 'ipt type="text/javascript" src="' + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/audiopops.js' + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></scr' + 'ipt>');
This would be a site-wide change, so everyone would see it, and it safely falls back to the current design with several links on browsers without javascript. I would be happy with any kind of support, suggestions, or criticism; right now I feel like I'm talking to a wall. — Omegatron 18:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I tagged a series of articles for WP:Phys yesterday, including both their class and importance, but a number of them have appeared as unassessed on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Physics articles by quality. This seems to have been caused by me using the lowerclass "start" class, rather than "Start". I'm guessing that this is either a small bug with your fetching bot (not recognizing the lower case start), or else a limitation with the tagging system, and that either your bot needs a minor tweak or I need to change the classes to "Start". Could you tell me which, please? Thanks. Mike Peel 07:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, do you know anything about this Kevin Carmody? Is he even a mathematician? I can't find any eprints by him at the arXiv or at citeBase.--- CH 21:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you feel like closing on the discussion at Talk:QED (disambiguation)? I think it's been long enough. -- Trovatore 03:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Now that we have a new toolserver tool that again displays edit counts in realtime, do you think it's a good idea to add that back into Mathbot's message like it used to be? -- Rory096 05:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I had not read that. Thanks. David R. Ingham 05:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello Oleg. I noticed that Mathbot updates Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Album articles by quality statistics, and I was wondering how that worked. I would like to implement something similar for WikiProject Figure Skating. I understand that a bunch of code needs to be added to Template:WikiProject Figure Skating, but I don't know how to make a quality table automatically update. I would like the template to appear here. Could you help me? Thanks! -- Fang Aili talk 16:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you clarify how Mathbot is counting these "article class" categories? I'm a little concerned that stats like "Unassessed 120779", for the biography category, would on the face of it have required about 600 category listings-page. Hopefully that's the exception (at least until the assessment plague has covered the whole wiki with talk-page grey goo) but it seems quite a lot to be doing on a daily basis. Alai 16:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I am very slow, I just understood your message. Thank you for your message! And I just realized that not everyone is entitled to edit the articles. If everybody does it, the articles will become very messy, and confusing. Those awful behaviors were really not my intention. So I was supposed to post my comments and requests on the talk page. I hope that I am right this time. Jackzhp 00:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, I hope you enjoy your wikibreak. When you get back, I wonder if you'd be willing to have Mathbot support "by priority" categories? We've had to rename our importance categories following a "complaint" that rating living people by "importance" might cause problems. We've already switched to the new naming so I hope you will be willing to do it :) -- kingboyk 16:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Salix alba is planning to move Ordinal number to another name. Please stop him. JRSpriggs 03:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Rename "Ordinal number"? God forbid!, and also a section at
Talk:Ordinal number#Should the article really be called transfinite ordinal numbers. The opinions are divided and presently the plan seems to be stalled. JRSpriggs 07:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
As soon as all the bots are updated, RfA will have section headers, in the format "<includeonly><noin</includeonly><includeonly>clude></includeonly>====<includeonly></noin</includeonly><includeonly>clude></includeonly>'''Comments'''<includeonly><noin</includeonly><includeonly>clude></includeonly>====<includeonly></noin</includeonly><includeonly>clude></includeonly>", per consensus at WT:RFA. Please notify me when you've updated the code. Thanks, Rory096 19:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg. Long time, no talk. Well I'm still in a state of sporadic internet access. I see by your talk page that you are also on some kind of internet hiatus. So this may be a slow communication. Anyway, I've planned this since back when I was a regular, and now that it's September, it's time.
So pretty soon, it's going to be your one year anniversary as an admin at Wikipedia, which I think is a nice ripe time. I think you ought to consider bureaucratship. I say this not as a friend of yours and co-editor who enjoys working with you, and not because you're the guy who nominated me for adminship and I want to return the "favor", but rather because of the activity I've seen from you in at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. I feel like there are bureaucrats who favor a lot more instruction creep and lots of solutions floating around looking for a problem, and we need more bcrats who keep things grounded. I appreciate your frank yet polite way of offering criticisms, a skill which I've yet to master.
I would be willing at some point (don't expect promptness) to collect these thoughts into a nomination, though I gather that normally people self-nominate for bcratship. What are your thoughts on it? - lethe talk + 02:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
There was a noticeable drop in the activity on math related pages while you were away :-) - Fredrik Johansson 12:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Oleg -
I noticed that you have previously commented on Krein space. Would you mind taking a look at my recent edit to see if it helps or hurts? In particular, I'm not sure whether I did the right thing in adding directions that are null in both inner products and the quotient (coset) space construction. This comes up in the application with which I am familiar ( BRST Quantization, which I am not done writing yet) but may not technically be part of the Krein space idea (see talk page).
Michael K. Edwards 02:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg. I was looking at the contributions page of your Mathbot and I started wondering about the time it takes the bot to process all of the jobs its does. The number of projects now using the bot seems to be increasing almost exponentially! Last month I seem to remember that the whole lot would be finished maybe by 5 am. This morning at 7:32 am (GMT) it had reached fig for Figure skating articles by quality log. Should the number of projects using the bot increase at the same rate, surely there will be a conflict with the (automated?) schedule: the bot won't have finished its jobs by the time it comes to starting the process again (midnight?).
I don't know if this is indeed a problem waiting to happen, or if you've accounted for the possibility. The immediate solution I can think of is to split the bot into two (or more) concurrent processes: 1—M and N—Z or something. I hope this is helpful to you, and I'm curious as to your thoughts in any case.
Keep up the good work by the way! :)
Cheers, -- Mal 06:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, I'm leaving for awhile in protest over some recent events. Please see my talk page for details, and please join the discussion there. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 17:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The RfA format seems to have changed yet again, and it seems to be confusing Mathbot. Could you change its setup so it places its link in the 'Automated data' section of new RfAs? -- ais523 15:06, 19 September 2006 ( U T C)
Oleg - most talk pages that go with real articles (not people talk pages) don't have this ability to start a new topic with a subject/heading like your talk page does. I haven't found the code to be able to start a new topic and I don't want to butt into a conversation.
Hints?
Rsteif 22:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg! Why doesn't "curvature" seem more clear than just "geometry", since arc is a particular type of curvature? Especially given arc's disambiguation page with a link to Arc (projective geometry), "geometry" seems rather vague (particularly since the pages for arc measure and even graph theory could be considered——albeit, a stretch——"geometry" in nature, and Arc (projective geometry) certainly is!). P=) ~Kaimbridge~ 21:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't have any objections. P=) ~Kaimbridge~ 00:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The focus seems clear to me: If you pull a piece of string between two points on a sphere or ellipsoid, , that strip of curvature is a segment of arc, its length equalling . My intent on developing the article is to focus on it being a particular type of curvature and, especially, the radius of arc, or "arcradius". The typical layman's formula for calculating short (elliptical) distances on Earth is usually the loxodromic, Pythagorean method, such as the one used by the FCC, here. In their formula, and , where is the midpoint latitude and M, N are the principal radii of curvature (in cosine multiple, binomial series expansion form, out to two terms). Using basic plane trig relationships for an infinitesimal length, where the loxodromic and orthodromic lengths and angles merge into one common length and angle ( is the globoidal——i.e., meaning spherical, as in non-elliptical, not orthodromic as opposed to loxodromic——azimuth and is longitude),
So, the FCC formula converts to:
Therefore, since ——i.e., the central angle——is the (globoidal) angular distance, then is the radius of that arc at , in the direction . Furthermore, given M, N and O, the globoidal azimuth converts to the local elliptical azimuth:
Given that this is a type of curvature, it would seem that "Arc (curvature)" is a no-brainer, but...it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong! P=) ~Kaimbridge~ 00:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, maybe that's the point of contention. The second sentence of curvature starts out, "Intuitively, Curvature is the amount by which a geometric object deviates from being flat..." which sounds like the same thing as a curve! If they are different, would an accurate analogy be "a curve is to a line, whereas curvature is to area"? M and N are usually identified as the "principal radii of curvature", but, then, they are also the "principal radii of curve" which sounds awkward (though "principal radii of arc" sounds okay). If that is the case then, yes, "Arc (curvature)" is wrong, and "Arc (curve)" would seem to be the "no-brainer" (and the distinction between "curve" and "curvature" needs to be emphasized). P=) ~Kaimbridge~ 10:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, alright then, I'd agree the article's——and my——interpretation falls under the "differentiable curve" meaning. Looking around further, there is another stub, plane curve, which could (should?) be merged with this one——"Arc (plane curve)"?——as I think "arc", in this context, could also be defined as "a segment of a closed, plane curve"(?). Within this theme, "radius of arc" and its equation can be developed. ~Kaimbridge~ 19:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to inform you that it seems to be some sort of log in process required to make Mathbot's tool work right now. MoRsΞ 22:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, your mathifying of circle of convergence section is a good idea, but at present you've inserted some typos. Could you take a look? Thanks Rich 18:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
yeah thanks, now i know what to do, use { }. I'd tried to fix it but couldn't so I notified you. As for the weird dashes, I'm sure Wikipedians 50 yrs hence will have far more to laugh at us for than that. Rich 06:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Kappa is specifically spamming inclusionist wikipedias [6] (link to example all are nearly identical) despite being asked to stop. See User_talk:Kappa#Votestacking. I think a block is in order but since I am very involved in this (basically the opposition to Kappa here) I obviously can't do it. I would therefore appreciate if you would take a look and make a decision. Thanks. JoshuaZ 02:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your intervention there. I am impressed that you managed to get Kappa to stop without using the heavy mop. JoshuaZ 03:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I am curious as to your opinion on this matter.
In referring to mathematical series, Isaac Newton used the latin plural 'seriei' many, many times throughout his Principia Mathematica.
Quite simply, a word which is both singular and plural is confusing. This is tolerated when the word is of english origin (see 'deer'), however when a word like series--which is a borrow-over from latin in any case--ignores its own plural, and we assign it the ambiguous role of standing for both singular and plural, well, there can be confusion, and it is certainly imprecise.
Based on Isaac Newton's use of this word in its authentic plural, do you agree that it provides greater precision to an article when speaking of one series versus several? I am of the opinion that it does, and its inclusion in mathematics articles would improve the readability of them as a whole, however I am curious as to your opinion. Evidently Melchoir does not share this view and is quite hostile towards the entire idea. Dbsanfte 05:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
After seeing the derivative wiki,i was pondering on one thing, Suppose f(x)={x^2 , x<2} {x^2+4 ,x>/=2} d/dx(f(x))=2x The Derivative is continuous,it is differentiable.But the function is not continuous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshaysrinivasan ( talk • contribs)
The definition of differentiable does not say that the function is continuous. You can deduce that it must be. But that is exactly what the questioner is doubting. He thought that he had a counter-example. I showed that it is not actually a counter-example. JRSpriggs 06:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I thought you might be interested in the discussion at Template talk:Please leave this line alone#Merge about merging newcomers pages -- Gareth Aus 08:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that Mathbot assumes that the article exists when adding it to the list of assessed articles. Unfortunately that may not be the case. I've found about fifty of these today, all of them in the Biographical Articles by Quality list. Could you please check whether the article exists while "scanning" it and tag the talk page with {{ db-g8}} if it doesn't, if this is possible? MER-C 05:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry for forgetting the summary fill in. -- Ulisse0 16:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Oleg. We had an interaction some months ago regarding 'logarithms.' I have now made an edit on the "sequence" page, under the "series" section of it, regarding how the terms of the series are defined, and in addition, how the series itself is defined. In a comment on that page, you indicated some uncertainty about the terms. I now agree with your expression of uncertain understanding. Please take a look at my edits if you have a moment and see if you agree with them ... and if you have someone you know to ask about the correctness of them, I'd be interested in being more certain of their validity. Thanks, KCliffer 20:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you mentioned: "Bolzano/Bozen was annexed after WWI becuase of Austria defeat, but it was not considered italian even by irredentists." Do you have a reference for this? I would agree somewhat that the Province of Trento was the upper limit of Greater Italy, but even though Bolzano-Bozen was not straight-out Italian, it was a mixed region. The character of this region has been a mix of Italian/German for centuries. take care. Taalo 22:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I see little updating of the 1.0 program assessments over the weekend - is there some sort of problem. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 08:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The page floating point needs expert attention, and such experts are extremely rare. Based on your past contributions in this or related fields, I wonder if you could take a look. William Ackerman 22:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi:
Since you have much more experience than me concerning Wikipedia, perhaps that you may help me with a problem concerning the Wikipedia page about the Fundamental theorem of Algebra. Please take a look at the third analytical proof, the one which uses the argument principle. You will see there the expression “” several times. Twice, it appears with a strange-looking minus sign as a subsript in the end. Do you know why? JCSantos 14:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Concerning this . Have you made a single edit concerning the case in question (let alone investigated it), to dismiss the proposal in such peremptory terms? -- Ghirla -трёп- 15:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This is in relation to your Mathbot's calculating of statistics (for WikiProject Films). Does your bot only support the main ratings (FA, A, GA, B, Start, Stub) or can it also support other ratings (Template, Cat, Disambig, Future, List)? I'd be very appreciative if you could answer. I didn't want to add
|- |{{ Future-Class}} || |- |{{ List-Class}} || |- |{{ Template-Class}} || |- |{{ Cat-Class}} ||
to the statistics page in case that might mess you and your bot up. Is it possible for you to do that? Cbrown1023 20:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Patrolling my watchlist takes significantly more work when people do use use edit summaries, so similar to you, when I run across someone who has made a lot of edits but does not use a summary, I like to drop a friendly request on their talk page. How often do people actually listen to you? Sometimes I fear that I am just wasting my breath because at least 75% of the time they continue not using edit summaries. My personal favourite is the registered user with over 8100 edits under his belt, but a major/minor edit summary usage of just 5%/9%. I tried leaving a polite request on his talk page, but he just deleted it (and has only made three summaries in his past fifty edits). Arg! :-( -- Kralizec! ( talk) 00:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg! Long time no see. Would you happen to know of any interesting facts for our Villarceau circles article? There's a neat animation there too. -- HappyCamper 04:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I noticed the wonderful Mathbot updates the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Mathematics articles by quality page. Could it do a similar page, but ordered by importance rather than quality? (Presumably at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Mathematics articles by importance). On a similar (but harder to implement) note, would it be possible for Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Mathematics articles by quality statistics to take the form of a table rather than two lists, so that it can easily be seen how many top-importance stubs there are?
Final point: I was planning on moving the tables of article grading WP:WP_Math/WP:1.0 into seperate pages (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0/Basics, etc.). Would this affect Mathbot's workings?
(Btw, given how multi-talented Mathbot is, would it be possible for it to do my ironing?)
Tompw 19:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Just another praise for Mathbot and a question. I can see that Mathbot updates pages like the Movies-statistics. At the Danish Wikipedia we are currently considering to implement a feature like that. I was wondering if you had any hints about how to make a bot who could take care of that one feature. I don't know if bot-owners usually share their secrets, but I'll try my luck. No matter what, Mathbot is still one of the most useful bots I have seen :-) -- Lhademmor 20:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I don't really know if
"this article does not deserve to exist.",
but
Fixed point iteration is a term used in
numerical analysis,
and
at least one editor (not me) has referred to
such an article .
I reverted because the article is a stub with a link to Fixed point (mathematics). -- Jtir 04:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually "fixed point iteration" is a technique in theoretical computer science: definition by recursion is regarded as solution of a fixed point problem g = F(g) and iterates of F converge to the fixed point. This technique has various flavors: an order theoretic one and a metric space one. -- CSTAR 06:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Despite rumours, I don't support this article, and if you look at its edit history, one of the first thing I did was to redirect it to the fixed point theorem article. Any discussion of the iteration belongs there. Loisel 15:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
hi dude, i just got a warning about editing pokemon or something and that i would be banned. i swear to god id never do anything like that. can someone be using my ip or something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.8.232.5 ( talk • contribs) .
By the way, you (Oleg) did write to User:210.8.232.5. You said "Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Oleg Alexandrov 06:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)". That was the first message left on his talk page. JRSpriggs 09:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
You might like to join us at Physics/wip where a total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess. At present we're discussing the lead paragraphs for the new version, and how Physics should be defined. I've posted here because you are on the Physics Project participant list. -- MichaelMaggs 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
You are the second user in the English Wikipedia that has reminded me to use the edit summary. I would like to know what is wrong? It is true that I am a bit lazy and I do not write anything when I make minor changes such as adding interwikis to other Wikipedias (my main work in this Wikipedia), but I think that I use it when I make an important or controversial change. Maybe I am accostumed to Catalan Wikipedia where we do not use it a lot and I should use it more in here... I would be very happy if you could tell me your point of view (and by the way, correct my English spelling). Thanks!-- SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 10:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Gentile sig.re
noto che ogni volta che qualcuno inserisce i riferimenti al libro di Giorgio Parisi "La chiave la luce e l'ubriaco" (Di Renzo Editore), nella voce di questo fisico, lei lo cancella? c'è un errore che viene fatto nell'inserimento? grazie e buon lavoro sante --unsigned
Hi, today Mathbot took International Space Station off of the Space exploration articles by quality list, even though it still has a tag. Yesterday the tag was changed from A-class to B-Class, but instead of changing the class it was removed completely from the list.. the article still shows up in Category:B-Class space exploration articles. Mlm42 14:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg,
can you give me a hint where I could find something related to the following structure:
Let E be an R-module, A \subset 2^E, B\subset 2^R, and
(Notice that while x is an element, a,b are subsets of E (sorry for the ascii-limited notation; I wrote 2^E for the power set although I hate this notation.) I'm using this structure which has remarkable properties (e.g. stable by multiplication with R(B,B) which is itself a multiplicative subset of R, lots of more if A,B are neighborhood bases of zero...)
I'm sure this must exist but I don't know where (maybe linked to ideal (ring theory), radical of an ideal, neighborhood (topology), stabilizer / little group,... (those are red links???))
PS: I'm somehow desperate about not finding this at the point I was going to post this question on talk:ideal (rng thy) (though I know WP is not a BB) when I saw a post from you there and remembered your wide-range math horizon... (don't know if U remember our discussions maybe 1 yr ago)
Thanks a lot in advance for any hint or suggesting me someone (from WP (?)) who could know more about that. — MFH: Talk 15:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Again and again someone new thinks it’s a good idea to use AWB to convert mathematics articles to Unicode, despite the firm and repeated opposition of the Wikipedia mathematics community. I weary of reverting and notifying each time it happens. If you, O Great Botmaster, have any ideas about means of future prevention, please help. -- KSmrq T 23:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I noticed today a strange listing in last night's run of the bot. This appears to list a number of marked novels that have a "Low" importance as "No-Class" it is strange in that is doesn't appear to have any consistency to it. It you need details let me know. The first this is true of in the "12 Oct" listing is Elephants Can Remember which was set as "Low" during the whole run. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 08:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Antivandalbot thinks so... Please take a look Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 08:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Please reconsider your decision on the article for deletion for this article. Sr13 19:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
This is kinda trivial but I noticed the "edit" buttons for sections 1, 2 and 3 are jammed inside the text on the User:Mathbot article, at least using my browser and my monitor. This happens, I think, when too many images are inserted into a section. Thanks for the incredible bot.-- Ling.Nut 11:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, what are your thought on my question here? Paul August ☎ 12:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
For some reason, Mathbot omitted all the B-class articles from the meteorology project assessments . I checked a few other projects and they seemed fine so I guess it was just a random error...just letting you know. - Runningonbrains 09:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
|
Thank you for contributing to my RFA. Unfortunately it failed (final tally 26/17/3). As a result of the concerns raised in my RFA, I intend to undergo coaching, get involved in the welcoming committee and try to further improve the quality of my contributions to AFD and RFA. All the best. Cynical 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC) |
I am one of the authors who worked on the article about the mathematical statistical method “berlin procedure”. You added the template which criticizes the “poor quality” of the article. I would like this article to remain in wikipedia. So maybe you could tell more concretely why you think that the article in this status is not appropriate to wikipedia. Afterwards it could be sufficiently improved. RANS 08:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it normal for the bot to be blanking Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/U.S. road transport articles by quality log or the stats page? it's done that for two days in a row. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 05:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)