Hello. Please see my recent edits to sinusoidal spiral. In particular,
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics) for more. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that the use of rule as opposed to function is not in keeping with standard texts respecting cellular automata. While it is generally of value to limit jargon usage, it is of less value to misinform readers. The standard of mathematics is to describe mappings (such as injections and in this case a surjection) by the term function. Perhaps we can meet half-way, by including a comment that the mappings of cellular automata rules are surjective. William R. Buckley ( talk) 17:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Asymptosy. Since you had some involvement with the Asymptosy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
So far this includes only lists. If there are other articles that should link to that one, could you add those links? Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Here's a link to an Amazon.com listing of an Amelia Ellis book. Note that "BoD", the publisher, stands for "books on demand". I don't participate in AFD discussions, so I'm leaving this message here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 12:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Since you participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew), you might be interested in the current discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew). Cunard ( talk) 03:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you re this article. Wikipedia is full of pieces of crap editors who piss me off and are illogical. You are not one of these people. Thank you for your good arguments on that article's deletion page. IAmTheCoinMan ( talk) 22:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your extensive discussion of the rationale for deleting "List of U.S. and Canadian box office bombs". Its good to see editors with a thorough understanding of the kinds of issues lists bring up. i try to do the same, but have only been editing for about a year, and am still learning. Lists can really bug me when they seem to have vague inclusion criteria, and i have trouble understanding why people DONT understand that, aside from people really loving a particular subject to the point of losing perspective. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 16:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of "Harpers Island" in the holding cell. I just wanted to remind you to make sure you move it to the "ready for deletion" section after it's been orphaned. It's not a big deal since I noticed that it hadn't been deleted, but we have had cases of templates missing the deletion step for months or even years. Thanks again! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you really believe that a Fourier series necessarily converges to the function that generates it?
So that all the work mathematicians did on this and related questions over a couple of centuries is nonsense, to be dismissed casually by you in a couple of seconds? All the books have it wrong, and you need not explain why, but only make a terse comment and then everyone will instantly abandon their belief in what the books say, despite the fact that books and papers give proofs and you don't? Michael Hardy ( talk) 14:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Given you seem to understand catenary curves would you care to look at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Coiled_rope thanks -- BozMo talk 13:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Why are you removing references like MAD?????
Tom Ruen ( talk) 20:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
As you suggested, I moved the thread "Fixing errors" from the village pump to the help desk. After doing so I removed the thread from it's original location, to avoid cluttering it or generating paralel answerings (I'm telling you because this involved your answer).
On a side note, I have been one of the longest contributors to spanish wikipedia, but despite my effords that project won't get anywhere. Non-admins are excluded from desition making, and admins can insult, dusrupt and use their tools with discretion even for mass deletions or forcing political agendas, that nothing would ever happen, as they protect among themselves. AGF only applies for them, and critics of their actions are "vandals", "trolls" or whatever. Policies are ignored, perverted or rejected, and discussion is not the way to decide anything but just a burocratic step that can be skiped or ignored at will.
Yes, spanish wikipedia has a very small community, and lacks a lot of content because of it, but that's because the project itself want it to be that way. Unless they decide to make radical changes, or the foundation decides to put an halt on this anarchic "project autonomy", their constant inferiority when compared with the other major wikipedias (at all levels) will be kept. MBelgrano ( talk) 13:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to help on Inchon (film). However, when this particular editor is involved, I feel moved to quote the great E.R. Eddison: "Be it as thou wilt, but it will be in vain." - The Worm Ouroborus, Chapter 2: The Wrastling for Demonland. Cheers. Steve Dufour ( talk) 06:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I appreciate both your comments and your suggestion to move it to the Village pump, as my intention wasn't to start a guideline discussion on the help page, but to be pointed to precisely where one might already exist and/or where I should start one. Given that it has started there (and someone has asked me a direct question), is it inappropriate to copy-paste to the Village pump the entire discussion from the Help desk page and continue it there? Should I simply start fresh at the VP, posting a suggestion and noting that fact at Help desk for those who have weighed in already to post again themselves if they want to take the trouble? Do you recommend I post at Village pump (proposals), or is it more fitting for Village pump (policy)? Sorry for the barrage; it's late and ducking in here for a moment and noting the responses, I wanted to keep this plate spinning. Thus far, I've generally stuck to editing and talk page discussions and need to bone up on both the processes and the etiquette of these goings-on behind the curtain. Thanks, Abrazame ( talk) 10:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Could you explain or give a link to explanations of youe edit : "Sub-Mandlebrot cardioids are approximate, not actual cardioids. " Regards -- Adam majewski ( talk) 09:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi RDBury,
As you have been involved in the previous discussions about bibliography pages, I thought you should be notified about a formal proposal here. Any constructive contributions would be welcome.
Happy editing,
Neelix ( talk) 20:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi RDBury, and thank you for comments on my talk page regarding my proposal. You're right, the closest existing article to this topic is Compass and straightedge constructions. However, the title for me is a bit strange. What I really had in mind is something close to [2] in terms of elaboration (look how it's structured at table of contents). Would it be helpful to rename Compass and straightedge constructions to Constructive geometry (as it seems more general and correct term) or at least make a redirection? Thank you. Pavel Modilaynen ( talk) 19:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
This phone is now released and deserves it's own page at least as much as all the other phones that have their own page.
Superfly Jon ( talk) 14:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
A bit of help at Asymptote and Talk:Asymptote please. User:Franklin.vp is impossible to work with, and I need to watch my blood pressure. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 19:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Nice find about Apollonius. For plane conics (over the complex field) this is actually equivalent to the modern analytical definition (the lead is probably not the place to bring this up, though). In general, for a plane algebraic curve, a line is an asymptote (in the sense defined in the article) if and only if it is tangent through the point at infinity and this in some sense "explains" why there remains some ambiguity over the usage. I don't know where I'm going with all of this exactly, but it would be nice if there were a source that stated all of this clearly that we could cite. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 22:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me, or are some of Franklin's comments about me way out of line? (The personal comments on Talk:Asymptote were one thing, but now he has been following me around, and I find this post which totally crosses the line.) Some of the things he has said in recent discussions have really hurt my feelings. So much so, in fact, that I am now considering retirement (again). I have tried to put my best foot forward now, recognizing that perhaps both of us have acted in a somewhat mutually antagonistic manner. But he has said some things of me in this public forum that I am very uncomfortable with, and I find it very difficult to move on. Do you have any thoughts or advice on the matter? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 19:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
It should be conveyed that the lim being infinity is by not means the final answer. Options:
. franklin 15:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Now it says that there is a vertical asymptote if the limit at a point is infinity (a correct implication). Next it says that "in general", it happens if any of those lateral limits are plus or minus infinity. All technically good but, since not everyone captures strict logical meanings more emphasis in the fact the first limit the incomplete picture or just an example should be made. For that reason I put it last. It is fine there if something like "in particular" or "for example" (or other alike) is added next to it. Or simply not to say it at all. franklin 15:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your request for documentation, I did try to describe briefly what mathbot does on its user page, particularly see the section regarding the list of mathematics articles. If there is anything beyond that you want documented, please let me know (here). Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 16:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar | |
Your work on this contributor copyright investigation is very much appreciated. Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
Hi, could you please explain the technical reason this edit? I don't see any difference between the two versions in my browser. Cheers - DVdm ( talk) 15:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Consider using {{ Nowrap}} for preventing equation wrapping. -- CiaPan ( talk) 09:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
You forgot to sign Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boy's surface/Proofs (2nd nomination). — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
It appears that you also forgot to sign comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnish numerals. Cnilep ( talk) 17:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello RDBury,
Thank you for your multiple contributions to Wikipedia. You are cordially invited to join WikiProject Mathematics. Feel free to add your name to the
list of participants. Happy editing!
Arcfrk (
talk)
17:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I just gave another solution for your Geometry problem in WP:RD/MATH – please see it in archives. -- CiaPan ( talk) 08:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I see you modified rating for the
Right angle article, promoting it to the C class
[3]
The 'Mathematics rating' link just before the class note leads to
WP:...Math.../Assessment. That page, however, does not define the C class, which is defined in
WP:...Math.../Grading scheme. Could you, please, correct the 'Assessment' page so that it agrees with 'Grading scheme'? (Or forward this request to other editors, involved in rating.) --
CiaPan (
talk)
08:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Helicatenoid.gif, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Makeemlighter (
talk)
21:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
|
Unfortunately, the PSB articles aren't currently available online (though they were three years ago) - I have to go to the library, which I'll do on Thursday. There are only lists of the articles: [4], where he is listed as Franciszek Witold Milewski (1817-1889). (This and other lists of the articles are at the "wykaz opublikowanych haseł" section of the PSB-webpage). I'm not sure if I'll be able to rewrite more articles than that about Milewski: neither my English, nor my knowledge of mathematics is perfect. But the Milewski one will be ready in a few days. I think that I'll try to write also about the early-modern ones. Laforgue ( talk) 12:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Please notice this edit. In particular, italicizing the digit 1 is plainly incorrect; see WP:MOSMATH. Notice what TeX does:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 10:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jesse Jackson 1983 and so I thought I would alert you to a discussion at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Jesse Jackson, 1983 cropped.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 21:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi- You put a notability tag on this article, and I wanted to give you my reasons for why the book is notable.
"notability should rely on whether it is published by an academic press,[8] how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media,[9] how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions."
UC Berkeley, Colorado School of Mines, William and Mary, Ohio University, Washington University, Phys 320 at Emory, SUNY, Syracuse Univ., University of Florida,
and many more where the book is recommended or supplementary such as
Penn State, University of Virginia, UC Irvine, Ohio State, Haverford College, Oregon State etc., etc.
I'm not sure how to show this influence in the article itself, but maybe it indicates to you that the book is notable? If not, what would you recommend to establish notability? Robsavoie ( talk) 01:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I have removed/edited one of your edits. In the article Hippopede you included the remark that these are exactly the bicircular quartic curves which are symmetric to both coordinate axes. That is not 100% correct, because these curves are the spiric sections. (One can define hippopedes as spiric sections, where the conic section on the right side of the equation is reducible. Spiric sections are toric sections with the mentioned symmetry.) Therefore I took this remark away from the article.
Anyway, I am glad to see that you are taking the available information about this aspect of geometry to a whole new level in Wikipedia. Thank you for this.
Hugo Sanchez-Vicario ( talk) 15:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() | You are being contacted because you have in the past participated in the Valued Picture project. The VPC project is suffering from a chronic lack of participation to the point that the project is at an impasse. A discussion is currently taking place about the future of this project and how to revitalize the project and participation. If you're interested in this project or have an idea of how to improve it please stop by and participate in the discussion. |
— raeky T 11:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Any opinion on the original? Imzadi 1979 → 18:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
... that this edit was actually made by you when you weren't logged in, as the comment asserts: [5]. If you could reply when you're logged in, I'd appreciate it. We don't want someone going around the reference desk pretending to be you. :P -- Kinu t/ c 05:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
FYI, your comment there duplicated another user's vote. I have removed it. Jujutacular talk 18:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much for deleting the section on reconciliation yet again. It is wonderful to find that there is such adamant opposition to these elementary mathematical observations. In contrast, here is the author of a leading history of mathematics published in the USA: Your reasoning here is excellent. I feel I ought to have noticed this connection before, but somehow I missed it. Thus, it appears that even if Plimpton 322 is about problems in algebra or Diophantine equations specifically, the connection with Pythagorean triples is quite immediate. And, of course, the argument that shows how to generate all primitive Pythagorean triples in the form (m^2 - n^2)^2 + (2mn)^2 = (m^2 + n^2)^2 works off the same idea of factoring the difference of two squares.
Now, what you are doing is helping to ensure that readers miss connections that they might feel they ought to have noticed. Please forgive me, but it really does puzzle me how that meshes with the enterprise of Wikipedia.
Would it be possible for you to say precisely and succinctly what the reasons for deletion of the section on reconciliation are?
What is it so unacceptable about this innocuous, yet pertinent and helpful, material, that it cannot even be left with a caution that original research may be present? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 ( talk) 04:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
However, each of those reason has been addressed point by point as the reasons given changed, one of the last reasons being that the material was unhelpful for any reader, pace the remarks from the leading historian. Moreover, adjustments have been made to the text in order to help head off apparent worries, misplaced though they seem.
When reasons change like this, it invites doubts as to the reasoning. So, would it be possible to pin-point, in your view, the precise reason why this material, whatever its merits, is so unacceptable that it has to be excised altogether, so we can get to grips with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 ( talk) 05:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Renewed thanks for reporting me to the Wikipedia authorities. This has led to Richard Morris User: Salix alba revealing a complete misreading of the excised section, in the face of a disclaimer inserted to guard against exactly that type of inappropriate inference. It is good to have this insight into the operation of Wikipedia, that an editor can excise material, and then place a temporary stay on further revision, wholely and solely on their own misreading, to the point that they are so unwitting that they voluntarily reveal themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 ( talk) 08:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I am currently discussing the issue of pointless drive-by tagging some other editors exhibit, so I felt like posting a thank you for your responsible tagging at block codes by providing a reason to the cleanup template. Nageh ( talk) 20:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminder that you have a GA review that has been left in limbo here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tangram Aaron north ( talk) 02:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, could you come back over to the GA review you were doing for Tangram? I responded to your suggestions, although one of them I couldn't find the issue. Please return. ☻☻☻ Sithman VIII ! !☻☻☻ 01:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Could you please comment here? Thanks, — Carl ( CBM · talk) 21:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm writing here to avoid going increasingly off-topic on the MacTutor discussion.
I'm on the editorial board of the OEIS so I'm familiar with its procedures. Whenever a new sequence is proposed an A-number is reserved for the sequence and the text is added to a draft for that number. These appear on the draft page which all registered users can see. Generally a number of corrections, additions, and revisions are proposed, both by the Editorial Board and the ordinary members. Once this is done, if the sequence looks good, an Associate Editor marks the sequence as reviewed. Usually more changes are made (causing it to lose its 'reviewed' status) and it is reviewed again. Once a version stabilizes, an Editor-in-Chief approves the sequence. Only then does the sequence move from the Draft page to its own page where it can be viewed by the general public.
Along the way many proposed sequences are found to be inappropriate—incorrect, a duplicate of an interesting sequence, or just uninteresting (the equivalent of WP:NN). If this happens the sequence is flagged by the person noticing this and the sequence is deleted by an Editor-in-Chief after there is some kind of consensus. (There's no equivalent of Wikipedia's WP:AfD process; actually so far there's been relatively little contention over deletion.)
The large number of people on the Editorial Board (maybe 50 Associate Editors!), together with the multi-level review, mean that the 'new OEIS' screens out many more errors than the 'old OEIS' (when everything was done by Neil Sloane). It's also faster -- there are usually at least a few Associate Editors working on the OEIS at any given hour, so sequences can get through the process fairly quickly. Two days might be faster than usual but most get approved (or denied!) within a week or two. Of course it's much easier than reviewing a paper!
Personally, when reviewing a new sequence, I typically re-calculate all the terms of the sequence. This gives some measure of protection against errors in the numbers themselves, as well as a check to ensure that the definition has been communicated clearly -- if I get other values maybe the description wasn't quite clear. Some are more work than others: sometimes I will spend several hours writing a more efficient program for a sequence and several more reading the references, where in other cases the references are well-known (or inaccessible to me!) and the sequence is straightforward (a linear recurrence relation, say). Of course it's rare that I will be the only one to review a given sequence; typically at least two others are involved.
So generally I stand by my original position: the OEIS is a reliable source, though it should not be used to establish notability.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 01:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Cf. en:Talk:Monic polynomial#A separate article; no dummy iw-links. Best, JoergenB ( talk) 18:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
for the helpful answer on math reference desk!("what are these number triangles called?")-Richard Peterson 199.33.32.40 ( talk) 17:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I knew that I was contributing calculations, not mathematics, but I was surprised that I hadn't even considered the possibility that the limit didn't exist. It seems likely that as long as positions far enough out can be reached from a single starting location (gcf{i: pi>0}=1 in your follow-up question), then things will be stirred up enough for the limit to exist, but I can't see a proof of this. I am so glad that you asked the follow up question, as I was planning to do so myself, and I wouldn't have come up with so general a statement. Thanks. -- 110.49.250.246 ( talk) 14:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi RDBury - Are you still interested in working on the Blaise Pascal article in response to the comments at the FAR? I see that you did some work, but there are still comments concerning comprehensiveness and referencing that have not been addressed, according to the reviewers. Please leave a note on the FAR page if you are interested in continuing work; otherwise, the article looks to be headed towards a delist, from the existing comments. Something that you can do is ping the reviewers who have already voted "delist", to ask them to revisit their comments, after double-checking that you have fixed or responded to all of the issues that they identify. Thanks, Dana boomer ( talk) 12:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I'll see if I add some more refs. Best regards -- Andrevruas ( talk) 16:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Please note that I have done a procedural close to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 9#Category:Mathematicians who committed suicide, and created a new discussion about the related category tree at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 3#Category:Suicides by occupation. Feel free to express your opinion there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Were you able to get a slide show for an article? Do you know any pages that have slide shows? Rhennius ( talk) 20:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, the French word for "snail" is "escargot", you are right. But "limaçon" is an old word meaning "snail", too. Please read http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/lima%C3%A7on if you can (it's in French), or: http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais-anglais/lima%C3%A7on -- El Caro ( talk) 16:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Please excuse my intrusion, but did you notice there is a new reliable secondary source of the first grade - the authoritative "Programming in Prolog" 1981 textbook - which seems to contain the poem in question, and in archaic spelling at that. I think this addresses your concerns and calls for a re-vote. Your opinion will be much appreciated. WillNess ( talk) 20:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear RDBury,
You deleted Simmons and Markovič`s conjecture about perfect powers: Markovič`s conjecture can be found in http://oeis.org/A186080 under comments:
"See A056810 (the main entry for this problem) for further information, including the search limit. - N. J. A. Sloane, Mar 07 2011. Conjecture: If k^4 is a palindrome > 0, then k begins and ends with digit 1, all other digits of k being 0. The number of zeros in 1x1, where the x are zeros, is the same as (the number of zeros)/4 in (1x1)^4 = 1x4x6x4x1.")
Author of the sequence and thus the conjecture is Matevž Markovič (as stated on the A186080 page).
Simmons conjecture was found on http://www.worldofnumbers.com/cube.htm "Simmons conjectures that there are no palindromes of the form X k where k is greater than 4".
While I am not sure that worldofnumbers.com is a valid source, OEIS definitely is. Or the conjectures mentioned in OEIS under comments do not count?
Matevz91 ( talk) 22:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi RDBury,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Helicatenoid.gif is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 13, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-11-13. howcheng { chat} 00:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. It seems to me that the link from Pale Fire to lemniscate was exactly what was needed. The dab page says lemniscates are figure-8-shaped, which is what the reader needs to know. — JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Just a courtesy notice, I'm about to start a GA review for Catenary, I should have some comments in a little while. Failedwizard ( talk) 17:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey man - I took some advice from a guy I trust on GAs [6], and I think it might be time to set a hard deadline for the end of the review process on Catenary. I happen to be around all of this week, and then am on holiday for the next two weeks so 7 days from now is probably our best bet (9AM GMT 20th Jan would be my time). There are a few outstanding things, but I think that we can sort them out between us fairly quickly, otherwise we'll have to be looking at resubmitting in the future... Failedwizard ( talk) 08:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I created the impression to not wait for consensus regarding the definition of artanh on Inverse hyperbolic function. On the other hand, nobody has brought forward a good argument against the changed definition on the discussion page. I interpreted this as consensus. May I suggest you read http://people.freebsd.org/~das/kahan86branch.pdf http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~watt/pub/reprints/2000-sigsam-according.pdf in order to understand why we programmers do care? richy ( talk) 22:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Why? See Wikipedia:NOTBROKEN.
Not that I particularly mind, I just want to be sure you're not wasting your time for no reason. :-) -- Steve ( talk) 20:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your help. The Cassini page as well as other pages on curves should probably display a template for the navbox to allow for easy navigation. Tkuvho ( talk) 10:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I can tell by your contribs that it is most likely you edited Rational point after reading my request for help at the reference desk. Assuming I am right, I'd like to ask how you thought your reversion of my attempted clean-up helps? Your edit summary stating that "the new version has some glaring formatting errors that it would take too long to sort out" tells me that something formatty was wrong, but not what, and it also tells me that you couldn't be bothered to fix it. So since I can be bothered, maybe you could explain why you undid my work, so I can set about fixing it? If I sound riled, it'll be because I am. If you can't spare the time to improve articles, leave them alone. If the only way you think you can improve an article is to revert it to a former state, please explain (clearly) why, so others can see about doing what is needed to improve it. There is never good cause to simple bulldoze through an article making it different. The result of your work was to revert it to a poor condition. How is that helping? fredgandt 05:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
[the same talk as a few moments ago, but now with a title]
Dear RDBury,
I am contacting you regarding the article Voronoi diagrams. For a reason which I don't understand you undid twice a certain contribution of me. More specifically, I added a paragraph to the section "History and research" and you deleted it (History: My contribution is from January 17 2012, undid by you: January 19 2012, undid by me: January 19 2012, undid again by you: January 20, 2012). To the best of my understanding, this paragraph is definitely relevant. Its goal is to show the abundance of Voronoi diagrams in the scientific literature. This was shown using a table which contained the number of items certain expressions (such as "Voronoi diagram") which appear in several well-known search engines. The table clearly proves that Voronoi diagrams have been extensively investigated during the last decades. In addition, since links to these search engines are included, this table also gives a simple way for retrieving many useful references with interesting applications, and thus can help in basing the whole article on a more solid ground (additional citations for verification, as asked at the top of the article). Finally, the paragraph also has some words about a special symposium devoted to Voronoi diagrams (ISVD), another indicator for their abundance.
I hope that now what I wanted to contribute is better explained. Thanks in advance.
Augochy ( talk) 17:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Thank you for your prompt and efficient work on Percentage! Gzuufy ( talk) 17:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC) |
Dear RDBury,
I am contacting you regarding the Copyable formulas from the Differential Geometry Library. You wrote that you think my changes falls under Wikipedia:ELNO. Please, state the items from Wikipedia:ELNO you think I may have violated.
Regards, Sandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandraShklyaeva ( talk • contribs) 12:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I know you have been involved a lot in featured pictures. Do you think that File:Cat_fall_150x300_6fps.gif is worth nominating (from Falling cat problem)? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Could you please leave a comment at Talk:Manifest Destiny#Birman if you get a chance? Tkuvho ( talk) 15:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
Isn't there n+1 numbers from 0 to n? The first is 0, the second is 1, the third is 2, etc., and the n+1st is n.
And likewise there are n numbers from 0 to n-1.
These are the only changes I made to the entry. Why did you flag these changes are errors?
Courteously yours,
Olivier Danvy ( talk) 04:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
You have introduced the word "indeterminant" in polynomial ring, with an edit summary asserting that "variable" is incorrect. I disagree with you. Firstly, "indeterminant" is not used in mathematics, and, in any case, is not a synonymous of "indeterminate" (the first two pages of Google Scholar for "indeterminant" do not link to any mathematical article). "Indeterminate" is clearly the correct and commonly used word. I disagree with you that "variable" is jargon and incorrect here: in modern mathematics (and also in computer science), a "variable" is simply a symbol which may be the name of any mathematical object. The word has lost his original meaning of "representing a number that varies". A witness that "variable" is correct for polynomials is the common terminology of multivariate polynomial. However, although a specialist of polynomials since more than thirty years, I may be wrong. If it is the case, please provide a reliable source.
Sincerely, D.Lazard ( talk) 13:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to reiterate my thanks for your help regarding my recent question on the maths reference desk. I am a PhD student, and have an application of the result in mind, which my thesis supervisor has asked me to write up. I'd like to reference you for the contribution of your argument: is there a way which you would prefer to be referenced? Thanks again, Icthyos ( talk) 14:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amanda Brooks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Brooks until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Orange Mike | Talk 17:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for your response at the reference desk on spinoza and axiomatic mathematics. I've left you a couple of more questions there. 213.246.165.17 ( talk) 13:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
You might want to put your answer to this question at Math.SE. Mark Hurd ( talk) 08:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I answered your question here. (It is unclear to me whether you will receive notification automatically, which is why I leave this note here.) -- JBL ( talk) 17:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FArchives%2FMathematics%2F2015_June_30&type=revision&diff=671046944&oldid=670300447 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.232.17 ( talk) 01:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi!Thanks for the answer at refdesk about percent change.-- 85.121.32.1 ( talk) 11:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, RDBury. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
This is Chuck. You aren't answering your phone. Call Ann&Ernie right away if you are because Ann is going to drive out to check on you. Then call me.
Chuck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cy Guy ( talk • contribs) 22:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Please see my recent edits to sinusoidal spiral. In particular,
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics) for more. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that the use of rule as opposed to function is not in keeping with standard texts respecting cellular automata. While it is generally of value to limit jargon usage, it is of less value to misinform readers. The standard of mathematics is to describe mappings (such as injections and in this case a surjection) by the term function. Perhaps we can meet half-way, by including a comment that the mappings of cellular automata rules are surjective. William R. Buckley ( talk) 17:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Asymptosy. Since you had some involvement with the Asymptosy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
So far this includes only lists. If there are other articles that should link to that one, could you add those links? Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Here's a link to an Amazon.com listing of an Amelia Ellis book. Note that "BoD", the publisher, stands for "books on demand". I don't participate in AFD discussions, so I'm leaving this message here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 12:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Since you participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew), you might be interested in the current discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew). Cunard ( talk) 03:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you re this article. Wikipedia is full of pieces of crap editors who piss me off and are illogical. You are not one of these people. Thank you for your good arguments on that article's deletion page. IAmTheCoinMan ( talk) 22:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your extensive discussion of the rationale for deleting "List of U.S. and Canadian box office bombs". Its good to see editors with a thorough understanding of the kinds of issues lists bring up. i try to do the same, but have only been editing for about a year, and am still learning. Lists can really bug me when they seem to have vague inclusion criteria, and i have trouble understanding why people DONT understand that, aside from people really loving a particular subject to the point of losing perspective. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 16:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of "Harpers Island" in the holding cell. I just wanted to remind you to make sure you move it to the "ready for deletion" section after it's been orphaned. It's not a big deal since I noticed that it hadn't been deleted, but we have had cases of templates missing the deletion step for months or even years. Thanks again! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you really believe that a Fourier series necessarily converges to the function that generates it?
So that all the work mathematicians did on this and related questions over a couple of centuries is nonsense, to be dismissed casually by you in a couple of seconds? All the books have it wrong, and you need not explain why, but only make a terse comment and then everyone will instantly abandon their belief in what the books say, despite the fact that books and papers give proofs and you don't? Michael Hardy ( talk) 14:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Given you seem to understand catenary curves would you care to look at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Coiled_rope thanks -- BozMo talk 13:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Why are you removing references like MAD?????
Tom Ruen ( talk) 20:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
As you suggested, I moved the thread "Fixing errors" from the village pump to the help desk. After doing so I removed the thread from it's original location, to avoid cluttering it or generating paralel answerings (I'm telling you because this involved your answer).
On a side note, I have been one of the longest contributors to spanish wikipedia, but despite my effords that project won't get anywhere. Non-admins are excluded from desition making, and admins can insult, dusrupt and use their tools with discretion even for mass deletions or forcing political agendas, that nothing would ever happen, as they protect among themselves. AGF only applies for them, and critics of their actions are "vandals", "trolls" or whatever. Policies are ignored, perverted or rejected, and discussion is not the way to decide anything but just a burocratic step that can be skiped or ignored at will.
Yes, spanish wikipedia has a very small community, and lacks a lot of content because of it, but that's because the project itself want it to be that way. Unless they decide to make radical changes, or the foundation decides to put an halt on this anarchic "project autonomy", their constant inferiority when compared with the other major wikipedias (at all levels) will be kept. MBelgrano ( talk) 13:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to help on Inchon (film). However, when this particular editor is involved, I feel moved to quote the great E.R. Eddison: "Be it as thou wilt, but it will be in vain." - The Worm Ouroborus, Chapter 2: The Wrastling for Demonland. Cheers. Steve Dufour ( talk) 06:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I appreciate both your comments and your suggestion to move it to the Village pump, as my intention wasn't to start a guideline discussion on the help page, but to be pointed to precisely where one might already exist and/or where I should start one. Given that it has started there (and someone has asked me a direct question), is it inappropriate to copy-paste to the Village pump the entire discussion from the Help desk page and continue it there? Should I simply start fresh at the VP, posting a suggestion and noting that fact at Help desk for those who have weighed in already to post again themselves if they want to take the trouble? Do you recommend I post at Village pump (proposals), or is it more fitting for Village pump (policy)? Sorry for the barrage; it's late and ducking in here for a moment and noting the responses, I wanted to keep this plate spinning. Thus far, I've generally stuck to editing and talk page discussions and need to bone up on both the processes and the etiquette of these goings-on behind the curtain. Thanks, Abrazame ( talk) 10:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Could you explain or give a link to explanations of youe edit : "Sub-Mandlebrot cardioids are approximate, not actual cardioids. " Regards -- Adam majewski ( talk) 09:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi RDBury,
As you have been involved in the previous discussions about bibliography pages, I thought you should be notified about a formal proposal here. Any constructive contributions would be welcome.
Happy editing,
Neelix ( talk) 20:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi RDBury, and thank you for comments on my talk page regarding my proposal. You're right, the closest existing article to this topic is Compass and straightedge constructions. However, the title for me is a bit strange. What I really had in mind is something close to [2] in terms of elaboration (look how it's structured at table of contents). Would it be helpful to rename Compass and straightedge constructions to Constructive geometry (as it seems more general and correct term) or at least make a redirection? Thank you. Pavel Modilaynen ( talk) 19:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
This phone is now released and deserves it's own page at least as much as all the other phones that have their own page.
Superfly Jon ( talk) 14:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
A bit of help at Asymptote and Talk:Asymptote please. User:Franklin.vp is impossible to work with, and I need to watch my blood pressure. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 19:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Nice find about Apollonius. For plane conics (over the complex field) this is actually equivalent to the modern analytical definition (the lead is probably not the place to bring this up, though). In general, for a plane algebraic curve, a line is an asymptote (in the sense defined in the article) if and only if it is tangent through the point at infinity and this in some sense "explains" why there remains some ambiguity over the usage. I don't know where I'm going with all of this exactly, but it would be nice if there were a source that stated all of this clearly that we could cite. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 22:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me, or are some of Franklin's comments about me way out of line? (The personal comments on Talk:Asymptote were one thing, but now he has been following me around, and I find this post which totally crosses the line.) Some of the things he has said in recent discussions have really hurt my feelings. So much so, in fact, that I am now considering retirement (again). I have tried to put my best foot forward now, recognizing that perhaps both of us have acted in a somewhat mutually antagonistic manner. But he has said some things of me in this public forum that I am very uncomfortable with, and I find it very difficult to move on. Do you have any thoughts or advice on the matter? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 19:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
It should be conveyed that the lim being infinity is by not means the final answer. Options:
. franklin 15:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Now it says that there is a vertical asymptote if the limit at a point is infinity (a correct implication). Next it says that "in general", it happens if any of those lateral limits are plus or minus infinity. All technically good but, since not everyone captures strict logical meanings more emphasis in the fact the first limit the incomplete picture or just an example should be made. For that reason I put it last. It is fine there if something like "in particular" or "for example" (or other alike) is added next to it. Or simply not to say it at all. franklin 15:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your request for documentation, I did try to describe briefly what mathbot does on its user page, particularly see the section regarding the list of mathematics articles. If there is anything beyond that you want documented, please let me know (here). Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 16:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar | |
Your work on this contributor copyright investigation is very much appreciated. Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
Hi, could you please explain the technical reason this edit? I don't see any difference between the two versions in my browser. Cheers - DVdm ( talk) 15:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Consider using {{ Nowrap}} for preventing equation wrapping. -- CiaPan ( talk) 09:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
You forgot to sign Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boy's surface/Proofs (2nd nomination). — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
It appears that you also forgot to sign comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnish numerals. Cnilep ( talk) 17:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello RDBury,
Thank you for your multiple contributions to Wikipedia. You are cordially invited to join WikiProject Mathematics. Feel free to add your name to the
list of participants. Happy editing!
Arcfrk (
talk)
17:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I just gave another solution for your Geometry problem in WP:RD/MATH – please see it in archives. -- CiaPan ( talk) 08:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I see you modified rating for the
Right angle article, promoting it to the C class
[3]
The 'Mathematics rating' link just before the class note leads to
WP:...Math.../Assessment. That page, however, does not define the C class, which is defined in
WP:...Math.../Grading scheme. Could you, please, correct the 'Assessment' page so that it agrees with 'Grading scheme'? (Or forward this request to other editors, involved in rating.) --
CiaPan (
talk)
08:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Helicatenoid.gif, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Makeemlighter (
talk)
21:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
|
Unfortunately, the PSB articles aren't currently available online (though they were three years ago) - I have to go to the library, which I'll do on Thursday. There are only lists of the articles: [4], where he is listed as Franciszek Witold Milewski (1817-1889). (This and other lists of the articles are at the "wykaz opublikowanych haseł" section of the PSB-webpage). I'm not sure if I'll be able to rewrite more articles than that about Milewski: neither my English, nor my knowledge of mathematics is perfect. But the Milewski one will be ready in a few days. I think that I'll try to write also about the early-modern ones. Laforgue ( talk) 12:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Please notice this edit. In particular, italicizing the digit 1 is plainly incorrect; see WP:MOSMATH. Notice what TeX does:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 10:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jesse Jackson 1983 and so I thought I would alert you to a discussion at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Jesse Jackson, 1983 cropped.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 21:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi- You put a notability tag on this article, and I wanted to give you my reasons for why the book is notable.
"notability should rely on whether it is published by an academic press,[8] how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media,[9] how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions."
UC Berkeley, Colorado School of Mines, William and Mary, Ohio University, Washington University, Phys 320 at Emory, SUNY, Syracuse Univ., University of Florida,
and many more where the book is recommended or supplementary such as
Penn State, University of Virginia, UC Irvine, Ohio State, Haverford College, Oregon State etc., etc.
I'm not sure how to show this influence in the article itself, but maybe it indicates to you that the book is notable? If not, what would you recommend to establish notability? Robsavoie ( talk) 01:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I have removed/edited one of your edits. In the article Hippopede you included the remark that these are exactly the bicircular quartic curves which are symmetric to both coordinate axes. That is not 100% correct, because these curves are the spiric sections. (One can define hippopedes as spiric sections, where the conic section on the right side of the equation is reducible. Spiric sections are toric sections with the mentioned symmetry.) Therefore I took this remark away from the article.
Anyway, I am glad to see that you are taking the available information about this aspect of geometry to a whole new level in Wikipedia. Thank you for this.
Hugo Sanchez-Vicario ( talk) 15:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() | You are being contacted because you have in the past participated in the Valued Picture project. The VPC project is suffering from a chronic lack of participation to the point that the project is at an impasse. A discussion is currently taking place about the future of this project and how to revitalize the project and participation. If you're interested in this project or have an idea of how to improve it please stop by and participate in the discussion. |
— raeky T 11:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Any opinion on the original? Imzadi 1979 → 18:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
... that this edit was actually made by you when you weren't logged in, as the comment asserts: [5]. If you could reply when you're logged in, I'd appreciate it. We don't want someone going around the reference desk pretending to be you. :P -- Kinu t/ c 05:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
FYI, your comment there duplicated another user's vote. I have removed it. Jujutacular talk 18:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much for deleting the section on reconciliation yet again. It is wonderful to find that there is such adamant opposition to these elementary mathematical observations. In contrast, here is the author of a leading history of mathematics published in the USA: Your reasoning here is excellent. I feel I ought to have noticed this connection before, but somehow I missed it. Thus, it appears that even if Plimpton 322 is about problems in algebra or Diophantine equations specifically, the connection with Pythagorean triples is quite immediate. And, of course, the argument that shows how to generate all primitive Pythagorean triples in the form (m^2 - n^2)^2 + (2mn)^2 = (m^2 + n^2)^2 works off the same idea of factoring the difference of two squares.
Now, what you are doing is helping to ensure that readers miss connections that they might feel they ought to have noticed. Please forgive me, but it really does puzzle me how that meshes with the enterprise of Wikipedia.
Would it be possible for you to say precisely and succinctly what the reasons for deletion of the section on reconciliation are?
What is it so unacceptable about this innocuous, yet pertinent and helpful, material, that it cannot even be left with a caution that original research may be present? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 ( talk) 04:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
However, each of those reason has been addressed point by point as the reasons given changed, one of the last reasons being that the material was unhelpful for any reader, pace the remarks from the leading historian. Moreover, adjustments have been made to the text in order to help head off apparent worries, misplaced though they seem.
When reasons change like this, it invites doubts as to the reasoning. So, would it be possible to pin-point, in your view, the precise reason why this material, whatever its merits, is so unacceptable that it has to be excised altogether, so we can get to grips with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 ( talk) 05:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Renewed thanks for reporting me to the Wikipedia authorities. This has led to Richard Morris User: Salix alba revealing a complete misreading of the excised section, in the face of a disclaimer inserted to guard against exactly that type of inappropriate inference. It is good to have this insight into the operation of Wikipedia, that an editor can excise material, and then place a temporary stay on further revision, wholely and solely on their own misreading, to the point that they are so unwitting that they voluntarily reveal themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 ( talk) 08:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I am currently discussing the issue of pointless drive-by tagging some other editors exhibit, so I felt like posting a thank you for your responsible tagging at block codes by providing a reason to the cleanup template. Nageh ( talk) 20:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminder that you have a GA review that has been left in limbo here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tangram Aaron north ( talk) 02:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, could you come back over to the GA review you were doing for Tangram? I responded to your suggestions, although one of them I couldn't find the issue. Please return. ☻☻☻ Sithman VIII ! !☻☻☻ 01:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Could you please comment here? Thanks, — Carl ( CBM · talk) 21:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm writing here to avoid going increasingly off-topic on the MacTutor discussion.
I'm on the editorial board of the OEIS so I'm familiar with its procedures. Whenever a new sequence is proposed an A-number is reserved for the sequence and the text is added to a draft for that number. These appear on the draft page which all registered users can see. Generally a number of corrections, additions, and revisions are proposed, both by the Editorial Board and the ordinary members. Once this is done, if the sequence looks good, an Associate Editor marks the sequence as reviewed. Usually more changes are made (causing it to lose its 'reviewed' status) and it is reviewed again. Once a version stabilizes, an Editor-in-Chief approves the sequence. Only then does the sequence move from the Draft page to its own page where it can be viewed by the general public.
Along the way many proposed sequences are found to be inappropriate—incorrect, a duplicate of an interesting sequence, or just uninteresting (the equivalent of WP:NN). If this happens the sequence is flagged by the person noticing this and the sequence is deleted by an Editor-in-Chief after there is some kind of consensus. (There's no equivalent of Wikipedia's WP:AfD process; actually so far there's been relatively little contention over deletion.)
The large number of people on the Editorial Board (maybe 50 Associate Editors!), together with the multi-level review, mean that the 'new OEIS' screens out many more errors than the 'old OEIS' (when everything was done by Neil Sloane). It's also faster -- there are usually at least a few Associate Editors working on the OEIS at any given hour, so sequences can get through the process fairly quickly. Two days might be faster than usual but most get approved (or denied!) within a week or two. Of course it's much easier than reviewing a paper!
Personally, when reviewing a new sequence, I typically re-calculate all the terms of the sequence. This gives some measure of protection against errors in the numbers themselves, as well as a check to ensure that the definition has been communicated clearly -- if I get other values maybe the description wasn't quite clear. Some are more work than others: sometimes I will spend several hours writing a more efficient program for a sequence and several more reading the references, where in other cases the references are well-known (or inaccessible to me!) and the sequence is straightforward (a linear recurrence relation, say). Of course it's rare that I will be the only one to review a given sequence; typically at least two others are involved.
So generally I stand by my original position: the OEIS is a reliable source, though it should not be used to establish notability.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 01:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Cf. en:Talk:Monic polynomial#A separate article; no dummy iw-links. Best, JoergenB ( talk) 18:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
for the helpful answer on math reference desk!("what are these number triangles called?")-Richard Peterson 199.33.32.40 ( talk) 17:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I knew that I was contributing calculations, not mathematics, but I was surprised that I hadn't even considered the possibility that the limit didn't exist. It seems likely that as long as positions far enough out can be reached from a single starting location (gcf{i: pi>0}=1 in your follow-up question), then things will be stirred up enough for the limit to exist, but I can't see a proof of this. I am so glad that you asked the follow up question, as I was planning to do so myself, and I wouldn't have come up with so general a statement. Thanks. -- 110.49.250.246 ( talk) 14:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi RDBury - Are you still interested in working on the Blaise Pascal article in response to the comments at the FAR? I see that you did some work, but there are still comments concerning comprehensiveness and referencing that have not been addressed, according to the reviewers. Please leave a note on the FAR page if you are interested in continuing work; otherwise, the article looks to be headed towards a delist, from the existing comments. Something that you can do is ping the reviewers who have already voted "delist", to ask them to revisit their comments, after double-checking that you have fixed or responded to all of the issues that they identify. Thanks, Dana boomer ( talk) 12:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I'll see if I add some more refs. Best regards -- Andrevruas ( talk) 16:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Please note that I have done a procedural close to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 9#Category:Mathematicians who committed suicide, and created a new discussion about the related category tree at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 3#Category:Suicides by occupation. Feel free to express your opinion there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Were you able to get a slide show for an article? Do you know any pages that have slide shows? Rhennius ( talk) 20:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, the French word for "snail" is "escargot", you are right. But "limaçon" is an old word meaning "snail", too. Please read http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/lima%C3%A7on if you can (it's in French), or: http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais-anglais/lima%C3%A7on -- El Caro ( talk) 16:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Please excuse my intrusion, but did you notice there is a new reliable secondary source of the first grade - the authoritative "Programming in Prolog" 1981 textbook - which seems to contain the poem in question, and in archaic spelling at that. I think this addresses your concerns and calls for a re-vote. Your opinion will be much appreciated. WillNess ( talk) 20:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear RDBury,
You deleted Simmons and Markovič`s conjecture about perfect powers: Markovič`s conjecture can be found in http://oeis.org/A186080 under comments:
"See A056810 (the main entry for this problem) for further information, including the search limit. - N. J. A. Sloane, Mar 07 2011. Conjecture: If k^4 is a palindrome > 0, then k begins and ends with digit 1, all other digits of k being 0. The number of zeros in 1x1, where the x are zeros, is the same as (the number of zeros)/4 in (1x1)^4 = 1x4x6x4x1.")
Author of the sequence and thus the conjecture is Matevž Markovič (as stated on the A186080 page).
Simmons conjecture was found on http://www.worldofnumbers.com/cube.htm "Simmons conjectures that there are no palindromes of the form X k where k is greater than 4".
While I am not sure that worldofnumbers.com is a valid source, OEIS definitely is. Or the conjectures mentioned in OEIS under comments do not count?
Matevz91 ( talk) 22:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi RDBury,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Helicatenoid.gif is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 13, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-11-13. howcheng { chat} 00:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. It seems to me that the link from Pale Fire to lemniscate was exactly what was needed. The dab page says lemniscates are figure-8-shaped, which is what the reader needs to know. — JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Just a courtesy notice, I'm about to start a GA review for Catenary, I should have some comments in a little while. Failedwizard ( talk) 17:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey man - I took some advice from a guy I trust on GAs [6], and I think it might be time to set a hard deadline for the end of the review process on Catenary. I happen to be around all of this week, and then am on holiday for the next two weeks so 7 days from now is probably our best bet (9AM GMT 20th Jan would be my time). There are a few outstanding things, but I think that we can sort them out between us fairly quickly, otherwise we'll have to be looking at resubmitting in the future... Failedwizard ( talk) 08:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I created the impression to not wait for consensus regarding the definition of artanh on Inverse hyperbolic function. On the other hand, nobody has brought forward a good argument against the changed definition on the discussion page. I interpreted this as consensus. May I suggest you read http://people.freebsd.org/~das/kahan86branch.pdf http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~watt/pub/reprints/2000-sigsam-according.pdf in order to understand why we programmers do care? richy ( talk) 22:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Why? See Wikipedia:NOTBROKEN.
Not that I particularly mind, I just want to be sure you're not wasting your time for no reason. :-) -- Steve ( talk) 20:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your help. The Cassini page as well as other pages on curves should probably display a template for the navbox to allow for easy navigation. Tkuvho ( talk) 10:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I can tell by your contribs that it is most likely you edited Rational point after reading my request for help at the reference desk. Assuming I am right, I'd like to ask how you thought your reversion of my attempted clean-up helps? Your edit summary stating that "the new version has some glaring formatting errors that it would take too long to sort out" tells me that something formatty was wrong, but not what, and it also tells me that you couldn't be bothered to fix it. So since I can be bothered, maybe you could explain why you undid my work, so I can set about fixing it? If I sound riled, it'll be because I am. If you can't spare the time to improve articles, leave them alone. If the only way you think you can improve an article is to revert it to a former state, please explain (clearly) why, so others can see about doing what is needed to improve it. There is never good cause to simple bulldoze through an article making it different. The result of your work was to revert it to a poor condition. How is that helping? fredgandt 05:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
[the same talk as a few moments ago, but now with a title]
Dear RDBury,
I am contacting you regarding the article Voronoi diagrams. For a reason which I don't understand you undid twice a certain contribution of me. More specifically, I added a paragraph to the section "History and research" and you deleted it (History: My contribution is from January 17 2012, undid by you: January 19 2012, undid by me: January 19 2012, undid again by you: January 20, 2012). To the best of my understanding, this paragraph is definitely relevant. Its goal is to show the abundance of Voronoi diagrams in the scientific literature. This was shown using a table which contained the number of items certain expressions (such as "Voronoi diagram") which appear in several well-known search engines. The table clearly proves that Voronoi diagrams have been extensively investigated during the last decades. In addition, since links to these search engines are included, this table also gives a simple way for retrieving many useful references with interesting applications, and thus can help in basing the whole article on a more solid ground (additional citations for verification, as asked at the top of the article). Finally, the paragraph also has some words about a special symposium devoted to Voronoi diagrams (ISVD), another indicator for their abundance.
I hope that now what I wanted to contribute is better explained. Thanks in advance.
Augochy ( talk) 17:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Thank you for your prompt and efficient work on Percentage! Gzuufy ( talk) 17:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC) |
Dear RDBury,
I am contacting you regarding the Copyable formulas from the Differential Geometry Library. You wrote that you think my changes falls under Wikipedia:ELNO. Please, state the items from Wikipedia:ELNO you think I may have violated.
Regards, Sandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandraShklyaeva ( talk • contribs) 12:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I know you have been involved a lot in featured pictures. Do you think that File:Cat_fall_150x300_6fps.gif is worth nominating (from Falling cat problem)? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Could you please leave a comment at Talk:Manifest Destiny#Birman if you get a chance? Tkuvho ( talk) 15:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
Isn't there n+1 numbers from 0 to n? The first is 0, the second is 1, the third is 2, etc., and the n+1st is n.
And likewise there are n numbers from 0 to n-1.
These are the only changes I made to the entry. Why did you flag these changes are errors?
Courteously yours,
Olivier Danvy ( talk) 04:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
You have introduced the word "indeterminant" in polynomial ring, with an edit summary asserting that "variable" is incorrect. I disagree with you. Firstly, "indeterminant" is not used in mathematics, and, in any case, is not a synonymous of "indeterminate" (the first two pages of Google Scholar for "indeterminant" do not link to any mathematical article). "Indeterminate" is clearly the correct and commonly used word. I disagree with you that "variable" is jargon and incorrect here: in modern mathematics (and also in computer science), a "variable" is simply a symbol which may be the name of any mathematical object. The word has lost his original meaning of "representing a number that varies". A witness that "variable" is correct for polynomials is the common terminology of multivariate polynomial. However, although a specialist of polynomials since more than thirty years, I may be wrong. If it is the case, please provide a reliable source.
Sincerely, D.Lazard ( talk) 13:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to reiterate my thanks for your help regarding my recent question on the maths reference desk. I am a PhD student, and have an application of the result in mind, which my thesis supervisor has asked me to write up. I'd like to reference you for the contribution of your argument: is there a way which you would prefer to be referenced? Thanks again, Icthyos ( talk) 14:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amanda Brooks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Brooks until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Orange Mike | Talk 17:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for your response at the reference desk on spinoza and axiomatic mathematics. I've left you a couple of more questions there. 213.246.165.17 ( talk) 13:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
You might want to put your answer to this question at Math.SE. Mark Hurd ( talk) 08:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I answered your question here. (It is unclear to me whether you will receive notification automatically, which is why I leave this note here.) -- JBL ( talk) 17:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FArchives%2FMathematics%2F2015_June_30&type=revision&diff=671046944&oldid=670300447 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.232.17 ( talk) 01:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi!Thanks for the answer at refdesk about percent change.-- 85.121.32.1 ( talk) 11:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, RDBury. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
This is Chuck. You aren't answering your phone. Call Ann&Ernie right away if you are because Ann is going to drive out to check on you. Then call me.
Chuck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cy Guy ( talk • contribs) 22:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)