Hi, wrt this edit — avoid putting mathematicians directly in Category:Indian mathematics. There's a subcategory Category:Ancient Indian mathematicians for that (the name is a bit of a misnomer, but the category page says it's for pre-13th century, which includes everyone up to Bhaskara II or so when Indian mathematics effectively ended outside Kerala, and for Kerala we have the subcat Category:Kerala school). BTW, you've been moving a lot of articles to names with diacritics. This is not necessary or helpful; it's better to use common names. There has been a lot of prior discussion on many India-related articles about this. It's enough to have the diacritically correct name in the article at the top somewhere; most readers cannot read (or cannot correctly read) the names with diacritics, so in many cases such changes make the encyclopedia less helpful. Regards, Shreevatsa ( talk) 04:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Beste Ruud, het beginsel A plus B is C” kan alleen worden gebruikt als deze conclusie al eerder is getrokken in een betrouwbare bron die betrekking heeft op het in het artikel behandelde onderwerp. Ik heb een betrouwbare bron (Encyclopedia Iranica) aangegeven. De geschiedenis van Centraal Asie is divers en niemand mag iets van deze gechiedenis opeisen. Iranica gebruikt echter geen etnische afkomst van Avicenna, want dit kan leiden tot verwarring en misvatting. Groetjes, -- Artacoana ( talk) 23:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:SYNTHESIS allows "A and B, therefore C", only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. My reference to the definition of tajik DOES publish the same argument in the relation to the topic: Avicenna was a Persian, and Tajiks of his homeland are Persian people and therefore Avicenna was a Tajik too.-- Artacoana ( talk) 23:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Artacoana has reintroduced (Tajik) to Avicenna citing trueknowledge.com, an authoress search engine mirroring Wikipedia and other online sources. This is a clear violation of WP:RS. When I tried to correct this, he reverted me, calling my edit "vandalism" , which is also a violation of WP:Civil. [1] I've tried my best to be accommodate this user and his concerns, but his aggressive posturing and editing is totally uncalled for. Kurdo777 ( talk) 09:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
These are the Google Scholar results on Avicenna's background. These are all secondary academic sources, and they all label him as "Persian", nothing more, nothing less. Saying that merely "his language was Persian" is not reflective of the facts. Please change the lead, to reflect the academic consensus on this issue. Kurdo777 ( talk) 09:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
-- Artacoana ( talk) 11:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the fact that Iranica and Encycloapedia state "his native language is Persian" is sufficient. Native denotes ethnicity and should not be deleted. The book of Goodman which is a specialized book (actually better than Encycloapedias) also is clear: "Abu Ali Sina, the Persian scholar, physician, ..."(Avicenna By Lenn Evan Goodman). Even if people disagree withis intrepretation, at the same time, one should not remove other sources that use "Persian" which do not contradict Iranica and Encycloapedia of Islam. Those are scholarly sources as well and meet WP:RS. There are enough sources in google books and scholars with this regard. Also Artacoana's claim: "the term "Persian" creates confusion and let Iranians to claim Avicenna for themselves. It's unfair, my friend.", that is not the case. Check Persian people. One does not use modern nationalities for old scholars, tht is anachronism. The term Persian in its own time is clear (native Persian speaker as is the case of Avicenna even mentioned in the two Encycloapedias Artacoana cites). Thanks-- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 17:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Iranica has it somewhere else: " Iranica has it in another section: "Avicenna (q.v.) was the first Persian physician to build on the Galeno-Hippocratic tradition rather than dogmatically adhering " [3]. Note Iranica does not even have the ethnicity of Ferdowsi [4].. So lack of something does not mean contradiction of something that exist. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 19:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Henry Corbin and Arthur John Arberry (his book is a translation of one of Avicenna's work and so more specialized) and the rest I mentioned are well known scholars. Of course it is better to have books solely on Avicenna(these books include that but sometimes more), but there are not too many in the literature. However, books specializing on Islamic Philosophy written by giant orientalists (Full Professors) on the specific topic (Islamic philosophy) meet WP:RS and are specialized enough. Thank you-- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 19:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Good afteroon, the books I am quoting are very specialized book. See [ [5]] (Avicenna on Theology [Paperback]) and [6]. Both of these are also giant orientalits Henry Corbin and Arthur John Arberry and they are more specialized than goodman. thank you.-- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 19:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruud, can you please check these fake users or IP addresses and see whether they are duplicated?
Many thanks, -- Artacoana ( talk) 03:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused by the fact tag you added there - it looks like the source provided is pretty thorough. Could you leave a note on the talk page explaining why you're worried? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 22:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you propose that Category:Static code analysis be renamed to Category:Static program analysis. To do that, see Wikipedia:Cfd#Procedure. (I reverted your edit that added that suggestion to the category page.) -- Pnm ( talk) 04:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Why did you remove the word Neural Network from the artificial intelligence title and why did you remove software engineering? DMoE ( talk) 12:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruud, thanks for reverting all those edits by Architectchao. I guess you are right, that he has been pushing his vision into a series of systems articles. I support the "Articles for deletion-nomination" of the SBC Architecture because it seems to be a promotion stunt. A second look at the sbc-architecture.org website made this even more clear to me.
There seems to be some similarities between SBC and TRAK and the user Wikitect. However at the moment I am quite positive about his work. Now I wonder at the Software architecture article, if you have a problem with the changes Wikitect made there? If not I would like to restore those.
Met vriendelijke groet -- Mdd ( talk) 22:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I was wondering why the article on Invasive weed optimization algorithm was removed? Thanks. - ARM ( talk) 21:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi! Rudd:
I am sorry... that I may be pushing SBC too hard. I have been working on SBC architetcure for 20 years and have published many SBC architetcure-related books and papers (most in Chinese). If these papers (in Chinese) can be referred, then I may try to keep SBC architecture in Wikipedia. Otherwise, I may not be able to convince you guys that SBC architetcure is so different from TRAK .. or DODAF, or ToGAF .. etc.
I really want to tell you that the method used in SBC Architetcure is so good (all because it integrates structure and behavior, and all other architecture approaches are not able to accomplish this). Please let me know if I can use all those publications (in Chinese) to keep SBC architetcure alive in wikipedia.
Architectchao (
talk)
12:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
So far, 7 papers (in Chinese) and 30 theses are written and published by my graduate students. In such sense, maybe SBC Architecture is not strong enough to appear in Wikipedia. It is kind of difficult for SBC believers (most are Chinese) to edit the SBC architecture in Wikipedia. That is why I, myself, almost spent 6 months to update this title.
Architectchao ( talk) 16:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
That is fine if you have this title deleted. I think I may try some other ways (instead of using wikipedia) to promote the SBC architecture. Thanks for your efforts.
Architectchao ( talk) 16:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Your lucky that I don't mind your structural revert and change in the Computer Science article. I would however still include a section that talks about how computer science is applied in industry. Call it industry I suppose, its one thing to talk about sub-areas, its another to talk about how it applies to different sections of the economy. I know application is probably covered in the sub-articles themselves, but it would be nice to have a quick overview so people can get a sense of what computer science does in a quick glance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimoes ( talk • contribs) 04:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruud. You just moved the pi calculus page to π-calculus. Are you aware that this move was proposed previously and unanimously opposed? The guidelines say "If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial." ComputScientist ( talk) 13:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi what is this decat action you took on Talk:Mathematics in Medieval Islam? - Aquib ( talk) 03:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. please forward as needed - Aquib ( talk) 23:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Consolidating two discussions that we can't seem to ever agree on, here's this. I offered a compromise on Talk:Comparison of Platform Virtual Machines, and I hope you look at it (it's NOT a new comment). Second, on Wikipedia talk:Why create an account?, I think WP:BITE has nothing to do with what I added there. Jasper Deng ( talk) 20:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
(Resetting indentations) I mean, we cannot let RDP count as 3D acceleration on that Wikipedia page. It's been used elsewhere to get 3D acceleration out of non-3D-enabled VMs, like with Windows Virtual PC. Jasper Deng ( talk) 22:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users who
edit disruptively or refuse to
collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jasper Deng ( talk) 21:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
— Ruud 21:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to hve changed your al-Khwarizmi. No harm intended. I have explained my reasons on the discussion page. I promise not to revert again, if you 're really, really attached to the way the article is right now. Ciao. S711 ( talk) 19:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Ruud, I would like to make a small 'official' note of our 'relationship' on your talk page because I have been in a couple of edit conflicts lately in which you have voiced your opinion sometimes protecting me or my points of view, which has resulted in you being targeted for criticism as well. Let it be known that I do not know Ruud or have ever met him, I have never communicated with him by e-mail or anything of the sort. However, I greatly appreciate Ruud participating in the disputes because he is considerate and fair. In fact, Ruud is so fair and unbiased that he has also criticized me for being elitist and impolite (which has been duly noted.) If it were not for such intelligent and unbiased administrators Wikipedia would be a Wild West of hearsay. I hope that Ruud will continue participating in improving Wikipedia as his leisure time permits and I naturally expect that he will voice objections to my behaviour or edits if he should see reason to do so, just as he does with other editors. Optimering ( talk) 10:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Some of the articles I have edited have been criticized mainly by the editors User:MrOllie and User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz as being biased and unbalanced in their coverage and inclusion of certain references. I get the impression that the editors are WP:HOUNDING me so they should come across this message as well, in which I propose a neutral resolution to the dispute. I have continually tried to revise the articles in question but it appears that the editors are not satisfied and especially MrOllie keeps reverting edits I make. While I question their knowledge of the subject matter and hence their ability to make such judgments, and I generally believe there is no merit to their accusations, it would be wrong of me to continue posting references to research with certain viewpoints without a review of the disputed Wikipedia articles from neutral and knowledgeable editors. Unfortunately, in the past disputes over those articles it seems that there are not many Wikipedia editors with sufficient insight to give qualified opinions on these particular topics. I would therefore like to propose that we request outside assistance and that you or another official Wikipedia administrator help in this. It will give more weight to the matter if an official Wikipedia administrator politely asks for outside assistance (besides, I never have any luck recruiting expert contributors as they have all turned me down.) I will naturally respect the outcome of an independent and competent review, and I hope the opposing editors will as well.
The disputed articles are:
With a bit of luck you will be able to recruit several expert reviewers/contributors. In the academic world, reviews can take anywhere from months to years, so we will all need a little patience. Also, the varying schools of thought in this highly experimental research field are more like religions to some, so it might result in some heated debates. But regardless of the outcome I would welcome more expert contributors as it would mean that the burden of editing those articles no longer lies (almost) entirely with me.
Cheers,
Optimering ( talk) 09:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
As you know User:MrOllie is continually reverting edits I make, particularly references to certain work. His/her concern is WP:COI. He does not argue that the work is either irrelevant, biased with weasel-words, or given too much weight thus making the articles unbalanced. He does not tag the articles with his concern and discusses on the talk-page, he just removes text. More importantly, he removes sections or phrases that makes the remaining context meaningless, for example in his recent edit of Luus-Jaakola where he removed an entire section on setting the parameter of the algorithm, without which the algorithm is useless. I have tried communicating with MrOllie several times over an extensive period of time but he continues his warring. I will gladly accept a community consensus or a verdict from an academic review board, but I will not be tyrannized by a random editor with no insight on the topic. Do you have any recommendations on how to handle this as it is rather tiresome that I have to monitor the articles and repair the damage? Thanks. Optimering ( talk) 07:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
As a courtesy, I alert you that there has been some discussion about Optimering at the COIN noticeboard. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 18:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
In case you missed it, there is an amusing discussion going on here. -- Lambiam 00:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Screenshot-Adblock Plus Preferences.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 02:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Peter Landin.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 19:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I concede that you were correct regarding WP:FURTHER. The length of the designers list is an editorial judgment issue; your position is a reasonable one that I'm willing to compromise on. But I absolutely disagree that WP:CITEVAR should be callously ignored. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
What is the point of adding userrights you already have, excepting abusefilter? / ƒETCH COMMS / 21:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
It looks unstable, as you noted. Aquib ( talk) 03:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to comment on the content dispute regarding the stubbing of the Mathematics in medieval Islam article Thank You - Aquib ( talk) 03:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Excellent work discussing computer science! Keep up the good efforts! A Very Manly Man ( talk) 07:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
There are now four users besides myself who have raised concerns at ANI about the blocking of talk page access. Silver seren C 06:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't remember precisely. I guess someone sent me a file or something like a webpage and said the picture is from a manuscript in Tehran University. I made, probably, a "computer snapshot" of it and post it as "completely my own work". Now that I know more about the meaning of these words and look back I see that it was not a correct thing to do. So please let us delete it. Xashaiar ( talk) 17:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Template:Citeseer has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
15:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
You recently speedy-deleted Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic) (2nd nomination). I don't necessarily disagree with the decision to delete it but you cited CSD#R2 in your edit summary. The wording of R2 explicitly excludes redirects to Wikipedia space. There are many legitimate cross-namespace redirects that are not even regular-deletable, much less speedy-deletable, and we're trying to clean up the cites to that clause so that it's not so widely misunderstood by new users. Nothing to be done for this case but if you could keep it in mind in future situations, it would make the cleanup easier. Thanks for your understanding. Rossami (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Web 3.0. Thank you. Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, - Aquib ( talk) 04:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You are invited to take part in this vote concerning the clean-up effort in connectuion with Jagged 85's RFC/U. Regards Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 11:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a community reassessment of this article to see if it still meets the good article criteria. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Al-Kindi/1. Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hoi Ruud,
Zou jij mij je mening kunnen geven over de laatste ontwikkeling en discussie op het George Romme artikel. We hebben daar een conflict (gehad) over de vraag of je dat artikel al dan niet volgeplakt moet worden met tags. Ik ben gewend, dat je met twee onafhankelijke bronnen de notability bevestigd. Ik heb daar zelf nu de indruk dat die discussie een gebed zonder eind wordt, omdat de ander gewoon niet wil toegeven. Een second opinion van jou stel ik erg op prijs, want dan kan ik er zelf een punt achter zetten. -- Mdd ( talk) 11:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Ruud. Thank you for the reminder, I'm actually still working on the categories, there is still a lot to do and I hope the renaming issue doesn't slow down my work. Al-Andalusi ( talk) 16:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
May I know why are you reverting the work I've been doing for weeks ? A decision is being made on renaming those categories Al-Andalusi ( talk) 13:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Analytica (software) 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/Analytica (software) 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{ Talkback}} message on my talk page. 17:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I moved the page back per WP policy (see link on the talk page). In the future, please do not move Russian people's pages, or at least discuss first - it's a bit of a pain to move them back. Mhym ( talk) 19:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
As you are involved in the discussion (dispute), I feel it is inappropriate for you to use your admin bit to edit the article when no one else can. Jeh ( talk) 02:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, I disagree with your change. It is true that Ubuntu does not use "terabyte" or "gigabyte" but it most certainly reports capacity in powers of 1024. That's what the IEC prefixes are - prefixes that represent powers of 1024. Jeh ( talk) 02:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Ruud? can you put in a word about these constant ANI incidents?
Every few days Greg and friends have been posting my name to WP:ANI and then piling on. Of course, nothing ever results from these, but it's getting extremely tedious. Now they've posted an incident about how they think I have too many incidents (and a bunch of random stuff).-- RaptorHunter ( talk) 16:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The latest:
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unstable_behavior_by_User:RaptorHunter
Category:Documentaries about psychology, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I really think, in light of the clear lack of consensus, your announcing intent to unlock at 10:13 and then unlocking at 10:14 is an abuse of your power as an administrator and hope you will take corrective action without making it necessary for me to take this to the next level, whatever that maybe. Tom94022 ( talk) 03:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Could you please record your work progress at the newly created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Top edits and, if you haven't done so yet, at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup#Cleanup lists. The first link lists the most frequently articles edited by Jagged 85 by number of edits, the latter by total number of bytes added by him. As you know, keeping track of the cleanup effort is paramount to avoid double work. Thanks and regards Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 01:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
[14] vs [15]? Tijfo098 ( talk) 12:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruud,
If it's ok with you, I will like to remove your merge proposal from 6 feb, which hasn't lead to any discussion (yet).
I also suppose you put it there because at that time the difference between the two articles wasn't clear, because the general introduction of the article was missing since the last edit by User:Shobhit jaiswal at 09:05, 9 December 2010.
I didn't notice that untill now and now I have restored it. I guess it should be more clear why there are two articles. Mvg -- Mdd ( talk) 17:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruud Koot. You participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter, which was closed as delete. The closure was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 13#Ch interpreter. Originally closed as "[n]o consensus = no change to the status quo", the DRV close has been amended by the closer to relist. If you would like to participate in the AfD, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination). Cunard ( talk) 08:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
"Spoilsport" is hardly an attack. Putting Category:Recursion inside itself is a cute little in-joke that does no harm to the wiki. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 14:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Did you see that the editor has two IPs (acknowledged by him in good faith), which I noted on his talk page? Kiefer. Wolfowitz 01:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
My mistake. This edit marked as minor and without an edit comment would be inexcusable, had I noticed it. (I think I'm going to disable the pop-up rollback tools in my Watchlist page, they don't mix well with my newly acquired budget Android touchscreen tablet). You could as well have reverted my deletion asking for a reason there instead of at my talk page, and I wouldn't even have known about it. Diego Moya ( talk) 14:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
[16] seems to say some unflattering things about version 6.0 of foxmail (phones home or something like that). FuFoFuEd ( talk) 10:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
"Foxmail is een uitstekende mailclient. We maken voor deze test niet gebruik van de nieuwe Chinese versie van Foxmail 6.0 - dit programma is sinds een overname in dubieuze handen gevallen en stuurt zelfs af en toe data over uw emailgebruik naar 'datacollect.foxmail.com.cn'. We blijven liever bij de oude vertrouwde Foxmail 5.0.8, die ook in het Nederlands is te downloaden via fm.mozeskriebel.com."
"Foxmail is an excellent mailclient. For this test we don't use the new Chinese version of Foxmail 6.0 - this application has fallen into dubious hands after a takeover and even sends data about your e-mail usage to 'datacollect.foxmail.com.cn' at times. We rather stay with the trusted old Foxmail 5.0.8, which is also available for download in Dutch through fm.mozesfriebel.com."
Jasper Deng (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruud!
Please review the edits of User:95.48.70.154, who was blocked for vandalizing (possibly unintentionally imho) the COI noticeboard. Thanks!
Best regards, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 14:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Please look at the talk page for David Eppstein. Kiefer. Wolfowitz 03:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Ruud,
I do not handle those talk pages in wikipedia so well, I guess it's ok to put my comment in this place(?). I saw your inquiry relating to the picture of the first page of Khayyams manuscript from the Tehran library (File:Khayyam-paper-1stpage.png). I am not the one who put it online, but it seems to me that it is a photocopy taken from the book by Mossaheb, "Hakim Omare Khayyam as an Algebraist", Tehran (1961). I couldn't find that first edition, however, I was able to obtain the second edition dating 2000. This is the bibtex entry for it:
@book{Mossaheb, author = {Mossaheb, Ghulam Hasayn}, title = "{Hakim Omare Khayyam as an Alebraist. Texts and Translation of Khayyam's Works on Algebra, with introductory chapters and commentaries}", address = {Tehran}, year = {1961}, note = {This edition couldn't be found. We cite from the second edition, edt. by the ``Society for the Appreciation of Cultural Works and Dignitaries with the collaboration of Iranian National Commission for UNESCO, Tehran (2000).} }
In that book, the facsimile of the first page of the manuscript in question here appears on page 484. In the weeks to come I would like to edit the Khayyam page in what concerns this small treatise of his, there is some additional interesting info to add. Cheers,
Sebastian — Preceding unsigned comment added by P0lise ( talk • contribs) 09:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Your call, but I think you might be inviting people to think you were unnecessarily harsh here. Sometimes even truth isn't an absolute defense. :) Msnicki ( talk) 17:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruud--
I found a few more scholarly articles on Bogosort to back up claims that it was used in academia, and have listed them on the AfD page. Although the sort is not the focal point of the articles, they are used and used by different computer scientists than the one in the first article mentioned on the page. I hope it's enough! I don't suppose you have any other text references of bogosort in, say, textbooks or other reference books do you? I Jethrobot ( talk) 22:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
A
request for comment has been filed concerning the username of
I Jethrobot (
talk ·
contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion
here.
I Jethrobot (
talk)
04:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Hoi Ruud, kun jij een blik werpen op dit artikel. Ik heb sterk het vermoeden dat de aanmaker direct bij dit bedrijf betrokken is, daar hij hier alleen dit artikel bewerkt, en al tot twee keer toe een geschiedenis-sectie uit een jaarverslag uit 2006 hierheen heeft gecopieerd. Ook betrouwbare derde partijbronnen zijn door hem gewijzigd. De COI tag die ik hierom geplaatst heb is door hem echter weer verwijderd. Persoonlijk twijfel ik ook of zo'n middelgroot Italiaans bedrijf eigenlijk wel wikiwaardig is. Ik heb hem zelf al eens op een artikel gewezen, waarin staat dat personen als hij zich beter tot de overlegpagina kunnen beperken. Hier trek hij zich niets van aan, en schijnt te denken dat hij het artikel kan gebruiken als verlengde van de bedrijfswebside. Ik zou het op prijs stellen als jij hier eens naar kijkt, en wellicht enige actie kan ondernemen. Alvast bedankt. -- Mdd ( talk) 16:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Jasper Deng (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, you caught me, I should have kept my mouth shut. :-) Seriously, I get frustrated trying to rescue marginal articles that deletionists just remove anyway. Now and then I like to work on articles that will stick around. But I guess I am a softie and will take the bait again.... Thanks for the article link you added to the Ethernet page by the way. It gives a nice overview and is very readable. It is embarassing to me how bad the computer networking articles are, so any help is appreciated. W Nowicki ( talk) 17:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Cerejota ( talk) 22:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruud. I note that you reverted the redirect from Vinum volume manager to RAID#Vinum. There had been a discussion on Talk:Vinum volume manager which indicated that people felt that the material was better placed in RAID - indeed, the material is still there: RAID#Software-based_RAID, and has been edited since the merge action so the material is well embedded in the article - [19]. What has happened since the merge is that the section name has changed so the redirect no longer goes to the appropriate section, but to the article as a whole, so a reader may miss the relevant material. What we have currently is the same material in two places, and a restored request to merge the material to RAID, and a restored request to split the material into into a new article titled Hardware RAID compared to Software RAID (which redirects to the RAID article).
I suspect that perhaps the solution is to update the redirect target, and then anchor it, to RAID#Volume_manager_support. Either that or open up a new discussion on keeping Vinum volume manager as a stand alone article, perhaps by initiating a split discussion on the RAID page. The option you have gone for of restoring the old article is also viable, though I suggest that the old dated split and merge tags are removed, as this would be essentially a new discussion based on the situation as it stands today, and people would need to consider that the material in Vinum volume manager is duplicated in RAID#Volume_manager_support, and consider what is to done about that. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I see you've indef blocked user:Flylanguage for his behaviour. This user has nominated a bunch of programming language articles for deletion. The first set were borderline pointy, and were not properly nominated. I corrected the nominations, and gave him instructions for doing a proper nomination as well as letting him know about WP:POINT. This was all apparently ignored as he then created more deletion discussions improperly. These AFDs are still not listed properly. Should these just be closed off? What is the appropriate action? Thanks. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
causa sui ( talk) 15:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't panic :-) I brought up the issue of what to do with pointy AFDs from Flylanguage ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at ANI. I'd like to hear your opinion. Regards, causa sui ( talk) 18:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] Hi, these edits do not appear to be an appropriate use of rollback, especially given this discussion on MrOllie's talkpage. In the future, please discuss things like this before reverting, or revert with an edit summary, instead of using rollback. Them From Space 20:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruud,
thanks for your hearty welcome.
-- Cobalt pen ( talk) 15:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Would you be willing to identify the editor you referred to at ANI. I'm surprised to hear one could have an ArbCom cases without prior DR, but if it happens, perhaps I have a misunderstanding of community conventions.-- SPhilbrick T 21:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm stunned that we seem to be so far apart, when in fact, we are very close on many relevant points.
As far as I can tell, the only thing we disagree about it whether a editor has the right to be told formally (as in final warnings, on a talk or escalating blocks, or RfC findings) that failure to change will result in a ban. I say we owe that to editors who are attempting to edit on good faith (as contrasted to an editor who physically or legally threatens another user, which reserve immediate action without warning.) Even obvious vandals get more polite treatment. You take a different position.
I fear I am posting too much on the ANI page, so I wondered if a side conversation would be helpful. If you'd prefer to keep it all on the ANI page, I'll understand.-- SPhilbrick T 16:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi - Please don't use wikipedia in references - also each use of the <ref></ref> tags should be for a single reference.-- Cameron Scott ( talk) 13:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
"He's a nice guy" - from your edit summaries, I doubt it. Have a nice day. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 13:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruud, Volgens mij heb jij de referentie toegevoegd aan het artikel van Diginotar mbt stappen die de staat heeft ondernomen (referentie 2) die verwijst naar http://www.govcert.nl/dienstverlening/Kennis+en+publicaties/factsheets/factsheet-frauduleus-uitgegeven-beveiligingscertificaat-ontdekt.html
Je hebt alleen deze link gegeven tussen een <ref> {{de url}} </ref> maar dit geeft een slordige referentie die niet echt lekker leest en vaak ook helemaal geen beeld geeft van waar de referentie over gaat. (Valt in dit voorbeeld wel mee omdat de omschrijving in de URL staat, maar vaak is het ook alleen maar een database-index. Het leest prettiger als je de referentie opmaakt door de URL zelf tussen enkele vierkante haken te zetten en na de URL de titel van het artikel te plaatsen en buiten de haken om waar het vandaan komt en data. Zie ook
nl:Help:Referenties en voetnoten en
nl:Wikipedia:Bronvermelding.
Linked to the Dutch explination how to add footnotes and references. For English Wiki the rules are a bit different see:
Help:Footnotes and links from that page.
Alvast mijn dank.
Tonkie (
talk)
23:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Computer Science for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 02:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to disturb you. Please do not revert the king cobra article as I have scanned the book and added to the reference to further support the statements. The reasons are stated in the discussion page as well and I have informed two managers Jasper Deng and Mokele about these. Thank you! User:Fearingpredators ( talk) 17:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Preciso de sua ajuda com as barras de
navegação. Eu tentei instalar em uma Wiki mas não funcionou muito bem. eu testei a template com a skin monobook e funcionou como eu queria, mas mudando para o visual da Wikia não funciona. o que tem de errado? Você entende
português? eu não entendo muito bem Inglês.
Alysson Zero (
talk)
15:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Renaming proposed for Category:Computer science departments in Great Britain to Category:Computer science departments in the United Kingdom & Category:Computer science institutes in Great Britain to Category:Computer science institutes in the United Kingdom as "the United Kingdom" is the usual term, other than for a few mainly historical categories Hugo999 ( talk) 06:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruud, on Academic genealogy of computer scientists I saw you recently adding an external link to the AI Genealogy Project.
For your information, I have created a template for adding entries to the AI Genealogy Project, based on the one for the Mathematics Genealogy Project, and used it already for some AI scientists. -- SchreyP ( messages) 22:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thanku very much. Please keep on suggesting for improvement. REGARDS, Pranav Manghat ( talk) 18:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruud. I saw you've imported quite a lot of pages for C reference to wikibooks. Have you finished your work? I ask because I want to start the cleanup of these pages, as the consensus at Talk:C standard library#Pages for each function and WP:NOTMANUAL seems to be pretty much established. Thanks! 1exec1 ( talk) 20:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi again! I saw that you haven't had time to do the imports yet. Maybe it would be better if I asked for import permission and did bulk of the work myself? I think there's no reason to wait any more, since the consensus over the cleanup to be implemented is pretty much established. Also, Wikipedia:India Education Program/Courses/Fall 2011/Data Structures and Algorithms has extended the deadlines, so I think they should be able to complete their work in Wikibooks. 1exec1 ( talk) 12:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
the image that i have uploaded isn't a scan of any book but created by my own in MS ppt but needless to say i made the same by consulting the book mentioned and then uploaded it -- Aamiya cchakraborty ( talk) 06:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
.tif
is an unusual file format for export from PPT, but common for scanning.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
09:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Looks like just a coincidence, and should probably be deleted as per consensus. Thanks for pointing it out, though. – Ilyanep (Talk) 08:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I am working on the page Double-ended priority queue under the India Education Program. Thanks a lot for your feedback on the course page. Pratik Lahoti (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruud!
Thanks for your signature, which means a lot to me, especially since we have sometimes disagreed about content and tone, and you have an annoying habit of being right in those disagreements.
Sincerely, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 16:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I have just blanked User:Netra Nahar/Artificial Intelligence and Data Mining. They have now re-posted there all the material that you rev-deleted as copyright violation from Artificial Intelligence in Data Mining. I left them a warning but the user page may need rev-del too. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 17:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey thanks for your concern. I appreciate that. Okay got it now. And thanks for the link, din't know the path format to get to these articles. aηsuмaη ༽Ϟ 11:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with you submitting a new RM for Shell sort, but you should not reopen the previously closed discussion and modify it. You took a position on the move. Glrx ( talk) 20:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
{{ science}} Hi Ruud, I am trying to make an afrikaans version from the Template:Science, but for some reason it is not showing [show] and [hide] (in afrikaans it will be wys and versteek), but it is showing [undefined]. So know I am wondering if it has to do with the coding from the common.js page? I am thinking that the code from template does not match with the code from common.js.
![]() New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Ruud Koot! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
Hello, Ruud Koot.
Could you please state your reason for this edit: [25]? You have not supplied an edit summary.
Regards,
Fleet Command ( talk) 06:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruud Koot,
I didn't want them to make a huge deal out of it. I'll let the admin know that you and Parsons43 meant well. The best way to avoid situations like this is to always use the "Preview" button first. Hopefully nothing like this will happen again. Have a nice day :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadiomals ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed you are listed at Wikipedia:Translators available. Could you please take a look at a post at Talk:Battle of Vukovar#Next steps: a call for assistance and advise whether you might be able to help in terms of a Dutch translation of summary of the article lead? Thanks.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 20:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
ManishEarth Talk • Stalk 10:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
With respect to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_13#Category:Dependently_typed_formal_languages renaming from Category:Dependently typed formal languages to Category:Dependently typed programming languages, note that while all the entries are formal languages, they are not all programming languages. Some are specification languages. This error needs to be tidied up so misinformation on this common misunderstanding is not propagated on Wikipedia. In the circumstances, I would recommend a new Category:Dependently typed specification languages for the specification languages, perhaps under an umbrella category of Category:Dependently typed formal languages, which would cover both. Would you like to do the honours since you created the new sub-category? — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 18:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you tell me wether my carg functions page exists in wikipedia or not Madhusudan 05:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I do not quite understand why
12:34, 31 October 2011 Ruud Koot (talk | contribs) (103,570 bytes) (remove inappropriate self-referential example)
I do not care much about the removal, but does it violate anything? What have you meant by "inappropriate" ?
Thanks, -- Comps ( talk) 14:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I had missed that. I think I've undone the duplication now. -- Lambiam 20:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Thanks a lot. No I am not, I am using Duplication detector for copyvio. But how to find the URL ?? Is there any other way other then Google Search ?? aηsuмaη ༽Ϟ 16:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I moved the discussion on the GNOME project to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Gnome#Discussion. I wanted to let you know as a courtesy in case you wanted to adjust the language for the change in context, or remove your other comment. Hope the move doesn't seem overly disruptive. Thanks. -- Pnm ( talk) 18:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Apart from the fact I see no concensus for the move to Computer Science on the Cryptography wikiproject talk page, the move is wrong. Cryptography should be put under Mathematics. Crypto was being used about 2000 years before computers came about: Caesar cipher. Are you claiming Caesar did Computer Science? -- DanielPharos ( talk) 20:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, when you PROD an article, could I trouble you to provide an informative rationale for the benefit of any newbies who may not understand, for example, "nn/or", and for the deletion log. Even just links to the relevant policies, like WP:NN/ WP:OR would be more helpful. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I saw you proposed a merge for Template:DBLP and Template:DBLP name. Is that technically possible? Debresser ( talk) 06:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
All instances of {{ DBLP name}} have been changed to {{ DBLP}}. And the name parameter is gone. As is the need to add the first letter of the name as a separate parameter. This has been avoided by using code {{lc:{{padright:|1|{{{id}}}}}}}. But the downside is that now the use of an "id" parameter is mandatory. The technical reason is that a page link with "Hoare:C=_A=_R=" e.g. is seen as a parameter called "Hoare:C=". In addition, I have fixed many incorrect usages, most of them connected with adding ".html" to the parameters. I have added a warning against this in the (adopted) documentation. Debresser ( talk) 15:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm writing to request a favor. The India Education Program pilot is concluding in Pune, India. It has been extraordinarily challenging and a series of learnings have emerged from the pilot that we intend to take on board to inform the way forward. I had promised an honest, open and comprehensive review. There are multiple ways that we are trying to collate and distill these learnings. One of these is that the Foundation has commissioned a study to do in depth interviews with a wide variety of folks who were directly or indirectly involved in the pilot. The include discussions with students, Ambassadors, faculty as well as members of the global community such as yourself. I thought it would be really particularly useful if we could get your views. You have been involved in the project (albeit not as part of the formal project structure.) I thank you for your involvement. You have made some interesting and insightful comments in the discussions you have participated in. Would you be willing and available for the person working on this study so that she can get your feedback and suggestions and comments? If so, would you let me know on my talk page? Do also let me know how I can have her reach out to you. Many thanks in advance. Hisham ( talk) 10:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes I know my edit (I thought I had corrected it, but that was another one). Your edit is wrong (it doesnt follow the policy too, especially wp:PIPING#Section_and_anchor_point_linking - I am no expert in disambiguation pages, so I have asked an member of the project to help Christian75 ( talk) 20:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
conj
. I moved the link to the description, where you are more free to pipe as you want ("For links in the description, link to a redirect or use an anchor-point link with piping to display text similar to the article title."). But you still have to follow: "When piping is used on a disambiguation page to link to an article section, the link should be in the description, and should avoid surprising the reader. The text of the link should not be the title of a different article."
Christian75 (
talk)
15:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
R, please comment at Talk:Computer_science#Feb_2011_re-org. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The editor had not touched the review in a month, and when it takes that long to get anything started, the review is considered abandoned. If he returns at some point and the article's still waiting for review, that user can always start it then. There's a review drive going on though so someone will review it quickly most likely. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi! As you were very active in discussions about the India Education Program's Pune pilot, I wanted to draw your attention to Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Analysis, a page that documents our analysis plan for the next few months. I encourage you to join the discussion if you have any thoughts. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) ( talk) 23:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar |
A barnstar for our one and only type theorist from Utrecht :-) Sławomir Biały ( talk) 15:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC) |
Are you sure you've tagged those properly? Shouldn't they be puppets of ERfan111? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I noticed this discussion didn't result in any action, but I think there's consensus to restructure the article as you proposed. Are you comfortable moving Software license agreement to End-user license agreement? (There's a talk-page conflict.) If not I'll post a formal move request on Software license agreement. – Pnm ( talk) 20:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
could you please have a look at Template_talk:MacTutor#A_proposal? We would like to downgrade O'Connor & Robertson to editors, and add an author field. Is this possible/reasonable?
Another option is to set OC and R to be the default values of the author fields, with the possibility to modify them.
Thank you very much, Sasha ( talk) 20:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Template:1911 POV has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Alpha_Quadrant
(talk)
02:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Quite wierdly, the latter was the sockmaster in the SPI, but the real sockmaster is Comps. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
A complaint about you related to your conduct with Commitment ordering has been posted in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 89.138.17.92 ( talk) 09:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Ruud. Could you add a comment on Talk:Snapshot_isolation explaining why you added the "neutrality disputed" tag to the main page? I'm sure you have valid reasons, but in their absence it's going to be hard to know how to resolve the problem. -- Chris Purcell ( talk) 09:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Never mind, I think I've worked it out. I assume the tag you added was supposed to link to the discussion on Talk:Commitment ordering, but actually only linked to a non-existent subsection of Talk:Snapshot isolation. I've made the latter link to the former. -- Chris Purcell ( talk) 10:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, wrt this edit — avoid putting mathematicians directly in Category:Indian mathematics. There's a subcategory Category:Ancient Indian mathematicians for that (the name is a bit of a misnomer, but the category page says it's for pre-13th century, which includes everyone up to Bhaskara II or so when Indian mathematics effectively ended outside Kerala, and for Kerala we have the subcat Category:Kerala school). BTW, you've been moving a lot of articles to names with diacritics. This is not necessary or helpful; it's better to use common names. There has been a lot of prior discussion on many India-related articles about this. It's enough to have the diacritically correct name in the article at the top somewhere; most readers cannot read (or cannot correctly read) the names with diacritics, so in many cases such changes make the encyclopedia less helpful. Regards, Shreevatsa ( talk) 04:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Beste Ruud, het beginsel A plus B is C” kan alleen worden gebruikt als deze conclusie al eerder is getrokken in een betrouwbare bron die betrekking heeft op het in het artikel behandelde onderwerp. Ik heb een betrouwbare bron (Encyclopedia Iranica) aangegeven. De geschiedenis van Centraal Asie is divers en niemand mag iets van deze gechiedenis opeisen. Iranica gebruikt echter geen etnische afkomst van Avicenna, want dit kan leiden tot verwarring en misvatting. Groetjes, -- Artacoana ( talk) 23:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:SYNTHESIS allows "A and B, therefore C", only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. My reference to the definition of tajik DOES publish the same argument in the relation to the topic: Avicenna was a Persian, and Tajiks of his homeland are Persian people and therefore Avicenna was a Tajik too.-- Artacoana ( talk) 23:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Artacoana has reintroduced (Tajik) to Avicenna citing trueknowledge.com, an authoress search engine mirroring Wikipedia and other online sources. This is a clear violation of WP:RS. When I tried to correct this, he reverted me, calling my edit "vandalism" , which is also a violation of WP:Civil. [1] I've tried my best to be accommodate this user and his concerns, but his aggressive posturing and editing is totally uncalled for. Kurdo777 ( talk) 09:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
These are the Google Scholar results on Avicenna's background. These are all secondary academic sources, and they all label him as "Persian", nothing more, nothing less. Saying that merely "his language was Persian" is not reflective of the facts. Please change the lead, to reflect the academic consensus on this issue. Kurdo777 ( talk) 09:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
-- Artacoana ( talk) 11:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the fact that Iranica and Encycloapedia state "his native language is Persian" is sufficient. Native denotes ethnicity and should not be deleted. The book of Goodman which is a specialized book (actually better than Encycloapedias) also is clear: "Abu Ali Sina, the Persian scholar, physician, ..."(Avicenna By Lenn Evan Goodman). Even if people disagree withis intrepretation, at the same time, one should not remove other sources that use "Persian" which do not contradict Iranica and Encycloapedia of Islam. Those are scholarly sources as well and meet WP:RS. There are enough sources in google books and scholars with this regard. Also Artacoana's claim: "the term "Persian" creates confusion and let Iranians to claim Avicenna for themselves. It's unfair, my friend.", that is not the case. Check Persian people. One does not use modern nationalities for old scholars, tht is anachronism. The term Persian in its own time is clear (native Persian speaker as is the case of Avicenna even mentioned in the two Encycloapedias Artacoana cites). Thanks-- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 17:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Iranica has it somewhere else: " Iranica has it in another section: "Avicenna (q.v.) was the first Persian physician to build on the Galeno-Hippocratic tradition rather than dogmatically adhering " [3]. Note Iranica does not even have the ethnicity of Ferdowsi [4].. So lack of something does not mean contradiction of something that exist. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 19:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Henry Corbin and Arthur John Arberry (his book is a translation of one of Avicenna's work and so more specialized) and the rest I mentioned are well known scholars. Of course it is better to have books solely on Avicenna(these books include that but sometimes more), but there are not too many in the literature. However, books specializing on Islamic Philosophy written by giant orientalists (Full Professors) on the specific topic (Islamic philosophy) meet WP:RS and are specialized enough. Thank you-- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 19:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Good afteroon, the books I am quoting are very specialized book. See [ [5]] (Avicenna on Theology [Paperback]) and [6]. Both of these are also giant orientalits Henry Corbin and Arthur John Arberry and they are more specialized than goodman. thank you.-- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 19:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruud, can you please check these fake users or IP addresses and see whether they are duplicated?
Many thanks, -- Artacoana ( talk) 03:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused by the fact tag you added there - it looks like the source provided is pretty thorough. Could you leave a note on the talk page explaining why you're worried? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 22:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you propose that Category:Static code analysis be renamed to Category:Static program analysis. To do that, see Wikipedia:Cfd#Procedure. (I reverted your edit that added that suggestion to the category page.) -- Pnm ( talk) 04:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Why did you remove the word Neural Network from the artificial intelligence title and why did you remove software engineering? DMoE ( talk) 12:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruud, thanks for reverting all those edits by Architectchao. I guess you are right, that he has been pushing his vision into a series of systems articles. I support the "Articles for deletion-nomination" of the SBC Architecture because it seems to be a promotion stunt. A second look at the sbc-architecture.org website made this even more clear to me.
There seems to be some similarities between SBC and TRAK and the user Wikitect. However at the moment I am quite positive about his work. Now I wonder at the Software architecture article, if you have a problem with the changes Wikitect made there? If not I would like to restore those.
Met vriendelijke groet -- Mdd ( talk) 22:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I was wondering why the article on Invasive weed optimization algorithm was removed? Thanks. - ARM ( talk) 21:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi! Rudd:
I am sorry... that I may be pushing SBC too hard. I have been working on SBC architetcure for 20 years and have published many SBC architetcure-related books and papers (most in Chinese). If these papers (in Chinese) can be referred, then I may try to keep SBC architecture in Wikipedia. Otherwise, I may not be able to convince you guys that SBC architetcure is so different from TRAK .. or DODAF, or ToGAF .. etc.
I really want to tell you that the method used in SBC Architetcure is so good (all because it integrates structure and behavior, and all other architecture approaches are not able to accomplish this). Please let me know if I can use all those publications (in Chinese) to keep SBC architetcure alive in wikipedia.
Architectchao (
talk)
12:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
So far, 7 papers (in Chinese) and 30 theses are written and published by my graduate students. In such sense, maybe SBC Architecture is not strong enough to appear in Wikipedia. It is kind of difficult for SBC believers (most are Chinese) to edit the SBC architecture in Wikipedia. That is why I, myself, almost spent 6 months to update this title.
Architectchao ( talk) 16:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
That is fine if you have this title deleted. I think I may try some other ways (instead of using wikipedia) to promote the SBC architecture. Thanks for your efforts.
Architectchao ( talk) 16:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Your lucky that I don't mind your structural revert and change in the Computer Science article. I would however still include a section that talks about how computer science is applied in industry. Call it industry I suppose, its one thing to talk about sub-areas, its another to talk about how it applies to different sections of the economy. I know application is probably covered in the sub-articles themselves, but it would be nice to have a quick overview so people can get a sense of what computer science does in a quick glance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimoes ( talk • contribs) 04:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruud. You just moved the pi calculus page to π-calculus. Are you aware that this move was proposed previously and unanimously opposed? The guidelines say "If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial." ComputScientist ( talk) 13:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi what is this decat action you took on Talk:Mathematics in Medieval Islam? - Aquib ( talk) 03:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. please forward as needed - Aquib ( talk) 23:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Consolidating two discussions that we can't seem to ever agree on, here's this. I offered a compromise on Talk:Comparison of Platform Virtual Machines, and I hope you look at it (it's NOT a new comment). Second, on Wikipedia talk:Why create an account?, I think WP:BITE has nothing to do with what I added there. Jasper Deng ( talk) 20:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
(Resetting indentations) I mean, we cannot let RDP count as 3D acceleration on that Wikipedia page. It's been used elsewhere to get 3D acceleration out of non-3D-enabled VMs, like with Windows Virtual PC. Jasper Deng ( talk) 22:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users who
edit disruptively or refuse to
collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jasper Deng ( talk) 21:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
— Ruud 21:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to hve changed your al-Khwarizmi. No harm intended. I have explained my reasons on the discussion page. I promise not to revert again, if you 're really, really attached to the way the article is right now. Ciao. S711 ( talk) 19:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Ruud, I would like to make a small 'official' note of our 'relationship' on your talk page because I have been in a couple of edit conflicts lately in which you have voiced your opinion sometimes protecting me or my points of view, which has resulted in you being targeted for criticism as well. Let it be known that I do not know Ruud or have ever met him, I have never communicated with him by e-mail or anything of the sort. However, I greatly appreciate Ruud participating in the disputes because he is considerate and fair. In fact, Ruud is so fair and unbiased that he has also criticized me for being elitist and impolite (which has been duly noted.) If it were not for such intelligent and unbiased administrators Wikipedia would be a Wild West of hearsay. I hope that Ruud will continue participating in improving Wikipedia as his leisure time permits and I naturally expect that he will voice objections to my behaviour or edits if he should see reason to do so, just as he does with other editors. Optimering ( talk) 10:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Some of the articles I have edited have been criticized mainly by the editors User:MrOllie and User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz as being biased and unbalanced in their coverage and inclusion of certain references. I get the impression that the editors are WP:HOUNDING me so they should come across this message as well, in which I propose a neutral resolution to the dispute. I have continually tried to revise the articles in question but it appears that the editors are not satisfied and especially MrOllie keeps reverting edits I make. While I question their knowledge of the subject matter and hence their ability to make such judgments, and I generally believe there is no merit to their accusations, it would be wrong of me to continue posting references to research with certain viewpoints without a review of the disputed Wikipedia articles from neutral and knowledgeable editors. Unfortunately, in the past disputes over those articles it seems that there are not many Wikipedia editors with sufficient insight to give qualified opinions on these particular topics. I would therefore like to propose that we request outside assistance and that you or another official Wikipedia administrator help in this. It will give more weight to the matter if an official Wikipedia administrator politely asks for outside assistance (besides, I never have any luck recruiting expert contributors as they have all turned me down.) I will naturally respect the outcome of an independent and competent review, and I hope the opposing editors will as well.
The disputed articles are:
With a bit of luck you will be able to recruit several expert reviewers/contributors. In the academic world, reviews can take anywhere from months to years, so we will all need a little patience. Also, the varying schools of thought in this highly experimental research field are more like religions to some, so it might result in some heated debates. But regardless of the outcome I would welcome more expert contributors as it would mean that the burden of editing those articles no longer lies (almost) entirely with me.
Cheers,
Optimering ( talk) 09:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
As you know User:MrOllie is continually reverting edits I make, particularly references to certain work. His/her concern is WP:COI. He does not argue that the work is either irrelevant, biased with weasel-words, or given too much weight thus making the articles unbalanced. He does not tag the articles with his concern and discusses on the talk-page, he just removes text. More importantly, he removes sections or phrases that makes the remaining context meaningless, for example in his recent edit of Luus-Jaakola where he removed an entire section on setting the parameter of the algorithm, without which the algorithm is useless. I have tried communicating with MrOllie several times over an extensive period of time but he continues his warring. I will gladly accept a community consensus or a verdict from an academic review board, but I will not be tyrannized by a random editor with no insight on the topic. Do you have any recommendations on how to handle this as it is rather tiresome that I have to monitor the articles and repair the damage? Thanks. Optimering ( talk) 07:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
As a courtesy, I alert you that there has been some discussion about Optimering at the COIN noticeboard. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 18:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
In case you missed it, there is an amusing discussion going on here. -- Lambiam 00:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Screenshot-Adblock Plus Preferences.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 02:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Peter Landin.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 19:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I concede that you were correct regarding WP:FURTHER. The length of the designers list is an editorial judgment issue; your position is a reasonable one that I'm willing to compromise on. But I absolutely disagree that WP:CITEVAR should be callously ignored. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
What is the point of adding userrights you already have, excepting abusefilter? / ƒETCH COMMS / 21:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
It looks unstable, as you noted. Aquib ( talk) 03:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to comment on the content dispute regarding the stubbing of the Mathematics in medieval Islam article Thank You - Aquib ( talk) 03:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Excellent work discussing computer science! Keep up the good efforts! A Very Manly Man ( talk) 07:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
There are now four users besides myself who have raised concerns at ANI about the blocking of talk page access. Silver seren C 06:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't remember precisely. I guess someone sent me a file or something like a webpage and said the picture is from a manuscript in Tehran University. I made, probably, a "computer snapshot" of it and post it as "completely my own work". Now that I know more about the meaning of these words and look back I see that it was not a correct thing to do. So please let us delete it. Xashaiar ( talk) 17:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Template:Citeseer has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
15:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
You recently speedy-deleted Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic) (2nd nomination). I don't necessarily disagree with the decision to delete it but you cited CSD#R2 in your edit summary. The wording of R2 explicitly excludes redirects to Wikipedia space. There are many legitimate cross-namespace redirects that are not even regular-deletable, much less speedy-deletable, and we're trying to clean up the cites to that clause so that it's not so widely misunderstood by new users. Nothing to be done for this case but if you could keep it in mind in future situations, it would make the cleanup easier. Thanks for your understanding. Rossami (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Web 3.0. Thank you. Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, - Aquib ( talk) 04:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You are invited to take part in this vote concerning the clean-up effort in connectuion with Jagged 85's RFC/U. Regards Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 11:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a community reassessment of this article to see if it still meets the good article criteria. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Al-Kindi/1. Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hoi Ruud,
Zou jij mij je mening kunnen geven over de laatste ontwikkeling en discussie op het George Romme artikel. We hebben daar een conflict (gehad) over de vraag of je dat artikel al dan niet volgeplakt moet worden met tags. Ik ben gewend, dat je met twee onafhankelijke bronnen de notability bevestigd. Ik heb daar zelf nu de indruk dat die discussie een gebed zonder eind wordt, omdat de ander gewoon niet wil toegeven. Een second opinion van jou stel ik erg op prijs, want dan kan ik er zelf een punt achter zetten. -- Mdd ( talk) 11:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Ruud. Thank you for the reminder, I'm actually still working on the categories, there is still a lot to do and I hope the renaming issue doesn't slow down my work. Al-Andalusi ( talk) 16:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
May I know why are you reverting the work I've been doing for weeks ? A decision is being made on renaming those categories Al-Andalusi ( talk) 13:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Analytica (software) 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/Analytica (software) 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{ Talkback}} message on my talk page. 17:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I moved the page back per WP policy (see link on the talk page). In the future, please do not move Russian people's pages, or at least discuss first - it's a bit of a pain to move them back. Mhym ( talk) 19:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
As you are involved in the discussion (dispute), I feel it is inappropriate for you to use your admin bit to edit the article when no one else can. Jeh ( talk) 02:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, I disagree with your change. It is true that Ubuntu does not use "terabyte" or "gigabyte" but it most certainly reports capacity in powers of 1024. That's what the IEC prefixes are - prefixes that represent powers of 1024. Jeh ( talk) 02:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Ruud? can you put in a word about these constant ANI incidents?
Every few days Greg and friends have been posting my name to WP:ANI and then piling on. Of course, nothing ever results from these, but it's getting extremely tedious. Now they've posted an incident about how they think I have too many incidents (and a bunch of random stuff).-- RaptorHunter ( talk) 16:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The latest:
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unstable_behavior_by_User:RaptorHunter
Category:Documentaries about psychology, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I really think, in light of the clear lack of consensus, your announcing intent to unlock at 10:13 and then unlocking at 10:14 is an abuse of your power as an administrator and hope you will take corrective action without making it necessary for me to take this to the next level, whatever that maybe. Tom94022 ( talk) 03:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Could you please record your work progress at the newly created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Top edits and, if you haven't done so yet, at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup#Cleanup lists. The first link lists the most frequently articles edited by Jagged 85 by number of edits, the latter by total number of bytes added by him. As you know, keeping track of the cleanup effort is paramount to avoid double work. Thanks and regards Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 01:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
[14] vs [15]? Tijfo098 ( talk) 12:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruud,
If it's ok with you, I will like to remove your merge proposal from 6 feb, which hasn't lead to any discussion (yet).
I also suppose you put it there because at that time the difference between the two articles wasn't clear, because the general introduction of the article was missing since the last edit by User:Shobhit jaiswal at 09:05, 9 December 2010.
I didn't notice that untill now and now I have restored it. I guess it should be more clear why there are two articles. Mvg -- Mdd ( talk) 17:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruud Koot. You participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter, which was closed as delete. The closure was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 13#Ch interpreter. Originally closed as "[n]o consensus = no change to the status quo", the DRV close has been amended by the closer to relist. If you would like to participate in the AfD, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination). Cunard ( talk) 08:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
"Spoilsport" is hardly an attack. Putting Category:Recursion inside itself is a cute little in-joke that does no harm to the wiki. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 14:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Did you see that the editor has two IPs (acknowledged by him in good faith), which I noted on his talk page? Kiefer. Wolfowitz 01:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
My mistake. This edit marked as minor and without an edit comment would be inexcusable, had I noticed it. (I think I'm going to disable the pop-up rollback tools in my Watchlist page, they don't mix well with my newly acquired budget Android touchscreen tablet). You could as well have reverted my deletion asking for a reason there instead of at my talk page, and I wouldn't even have known about it. Diego Moya ( talk) 14:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
[16] seems to say some unflattering things about version 6.0 of foxmail (phones home or something like that). FuFoFuEd ( talk) 10:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
"Foxmail is een uitstekende mailclient. We maken voor deze test niet gebruik van de nieuwe Chinese versie van Foxmail 6.0 - dit programma is sinds een overname in dubieuze handen gevallen en stuurt zelfs af en toe data over uw emailgebruik naar 'datacollect.foxmail.com.cn'. We blijven liever bij de oude vertrouwde Foxmail 5.0.8, die ook in het Nederlands is te downloaden via fm.mozeskriebel.com."
"Foxmail is an excellent mailclient. For this test we don't use the new Chinese version of Foxmail 6.0 - this application has fallen into dubious hands after a takeover and even sends data about your e-mail usage to 'datacollect.foxmail.com.cn' at times. We rather stay with the trusted old Foxmail 5.0.8, which is also available for download in Dutch through fm.mozesfriebel.com."
Jasper Deng (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruud!
Please review the edits of User:95.48.70.154, who was blocked for vandalizing (possibly unintentionally imho) the COI noticeboard. Thanks!
Best regards, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 14:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Please look at the talk page for David Eppstein. Kiefer. Wolfowitz 03:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Ruud,
I do not handle those talk pages in wikipedia so well, I guess it's ok to put my comment in this place(?). I saw your inquiry relating to the picture of the first page of Khayyams manuscript from the Tehran library (File:Khayyam-paper-1stpage.png). I am not the one who put it online, but it seems to me that it is a photocopy taken from the book by Mossaheb, "Hakim Omare Khayyam as an Algebraist", Tehran (1961). I couldn't find that first edition, however, I was able to obtain the second edition dating 2000. This is the bibtex entry for it:
@book{Mossaheb, author = {Mossaheb, Ghulam Hasayn}, title = "{Hakim Omare Khayyam as an Alebraist. Texts and Translation of Khayyam's Works on Algebra, with introductory chapters and commentaries}", address = {Tehran}, year = {1961}, note = {This edition couldn't be found. We cite from the second edition, edt. by the ``Society for the Appreciation of Cultural Works and Dignitaries with the collaboration of Iranian National Commission for UNESCO, Tehran (2000).} }
In that book, the facsimile of the first page of the manuscript in question here appears on page 484. In the weeks to come I would like to edit the Khayyam page in what concerns this small treatise of his, there is some additional interesting info to add. Cheers,
Sebastian — Preceding unsigned comment added by P0lise ( talk • contribs) 09:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Your call, but I think you might be inviting people to think you were unnecessarily harsh here. Sometimes even truth isn't an absolute defense. :) Msnicki ( talk) 17:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruud--
I found a few more scholarly articles on Bogosort to back up claims that it was used in academia, and have listed them on the AfD page. Although the sort is not the focal point of the articles, they are used and used by different computer scientists than the one in the first article mentioned on the page. I hope it's enough! I don't suppose you have any other text references of bogosort in, say, textbooks or other reference books do you? I Jethrobot ( talk) 22:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
A
request for comment has been filed concerning the username of
I Jethrobot (
talk ·
contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion
here.
I Jethrobot (
talk)
04:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Hoi Ruud, kun jij een blik werpen op dit artikel. Ik heb sterk het vermoeden dat de aanmaker direct bij dit bedrijf betrokken is, daar hij hier alleen dit artikel bewerkt, en al tot twee keer toe een geschiedenis-sectie uit een jaarverslag uit 2006 hierheen heeft gecopieerd. Ook betrouwbare derde partijbronnen zijn door hem gewijzigd. De COI tag die ik hierom geplaatst heb is door hem echter weer verwijderd. Persoonlijk twijfel ik ook of zo'n middelgroot Italiaans bedrijf eigenlijk wel wikiwaardig is. Ik heb hem zelf al eens op een artikel gewezen, waarin staat dat personen als hij zich beter tot de overlegpagina kunnen beperken. Hier trek hij zich niets van aan, en schijnt te denken dat hij het artikel kan gebruiken als verlengde van de bedrijfswebside. Ik zou het op prijs stellen als jij hier eens naar kijkt, en wellicht enige actie kan ondernemen. Alvast bedankt. -- Mdd ( talk) 16:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Jasper Deng (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, you caught me, I should have kept my mouth shut. :-) Seriously, I get frustrated trying to rescue marginal articles that deletionists just remove anyway. Now and then I like to work on articles that will stick around. But I guess I am a softie and will take the bait again.... Thanks for the article link you added to the Ethernet page by the way. It gives a nice overview and is very readable. It is embarassing to me how bad the computer networking articles are, so any help is appreciated. W Nowicki ( talk) 17:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Cerejota ( talk) 22:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruud. I note that you reverted the redirect from Vinum volume manager to RAID#Vinum. There had been a discussion on Talk:Vinum volume manager which indicated that people felt that the material was better placed in RAID - indeed, the material is still there: RAID#Software-based_RAID, and has been edited since the merge action so the material is well embedded in the article - [19]. What has happened since the merge is that the section name has changed so the redirect no longer goes to the appropriate section, but to the article as a whole, so a reader may miss the relevant material. What we have currently is the same material in two places, and a restored request to merge the material to RAID, and a restored request to split the material into into a new article titled Hardware RAID compared to Software RAID (which redirects to the RAID article).
I suspect that perhaps the solution is to update the redirect target, and then anchor it, to RAID#Volume_manager_support. Either that or open up a new discussion on keeping Vinum volume manager as a stand alone article, perhaps by initiating a split discussion on the RAID page. The option you have gone for of restoring the old article is also viable, though I suggest that the old dated split and merge tags are removed, as this would be essentially a new discussion based on the situation as it stands today, and people would need to consider that the material in Vinum volume manager is duplicated in RAID#Volume_manager_support, and consider what is to done about that. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I see you've indef blocked user:Flylanguage for his behaviour. This user has nominated a bunch of programming language articles for deletion. The first set were borderline pointy, and were not properly nominated. I corrected the nominations, and gave him instructions for doing a proper nomination as well as letting him know about WP:POINT. This was all apparently ignored as he then created more deletion discussions improperly. These AFDs are still not listed properly. Should these just be closed off? What is the appropriate action? Thanks. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
causa sui ( talk) 15:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't panic :-) I brought up the issue of what to do with pointy AFDs from Flylanguage ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at ANI. I'd like to hear your opinion. Regards, causa sui ( talk) 18:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] Hi, these edits do not appear to be an appropriate use of rollback, especially given this discussion on MrOllie's talkpage. In the future, please discuss things like this before reverting, or revert with an edit summary, instead of using rollback. Them From Space 20:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruud,
thanks for your hearty welcome.
-- Cobalt pen ( talk) 15:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Would you be willing to identify the editor you referred to at ANI. I'm surprised to hear one could have an ArbCom cases without prior DR, but if it happens, perhaps I have a misunderstanding of community conventions.-- SPhilbrick T 21:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm stunned that we seem to be so far apart, when in fact, we are very close on many relevant points.
As far as I can tell, the only thing we disagree about it whether a editor has the right to be told formally (as in final warnings, on a talk or escalating blocks, or RfC findings) that failure to change will result in a ban. I say we owe that to editors who are attempting to edit on good faith (as contrasted to an editor who physically or legally threatens another user, which reserve immediate action without warning.) Even obvious vandals get more polite treatment. You take a different position.
I fear I am posting too much on the ANI page, so I wondered if a side conversation would be helpful. If you'd prefer to keep it all on the ANI page, I'll understand.-- SPhilbrick T 16:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi - Please don't use wikipedia in references - also each use of the <ref></ref> tags should be for a single reference.-- Cameron Scott ( talk) 13:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
"He's a nice guy" - from your edit summaries, I doubt it. Have a nice day. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 13:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruud, Volgens mij heb jij de referentie toegevoegd aan het artikel van Diginotar mbt stappen die de staat heeft ondernomen (referentie 2) die verwijst naar http://www.govcert.nl/dienstverlening/Kennis+en+publicaties/factsheets/factsheet-frauduleus-uitgegeven-beveiligingscertificaat-ontdekt.html
Je hebt alleen deze link gegeven tussen een <ref> {{de url}} </ref> maar dit geeft een slordige referentie die niet echt lekker leest en vaak ook helemaal geen beeld geeft van waar de referentie over gaat. (Valt in dit voorbeeld wel mee omdat de omschrijving in de URL staat, maar vaak is het ook alleen maar een database-index. Het leest prettiger als je de referentie opmaakt door de URL zelf tussen enkele vierkante haken te zetten en na de URL de titel van het artikel te plaatsen en buiten de haken om waar het vandaan komt en data. Zie ook
nl:Help:Referenties en voetnoten en
nl:Wikipedia:Bronvermelding.
Linked to the Dutch explination how to add footnotes and references. For English Wiki the rules are a bit different see:
Help:Footnotes and links from that page.
Alvast mijn dank.
Tonkie (
talk)
23:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Computer Science for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 02:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to disturb you. Please do not revert the king cobra article as I have scanned the book and added to the reference to further support the statements. The reasons are stated in the discussion page as well and I have informed two managers Jasper Deng and Mokele about these. Thank you! User:Fearingpredators ( talk) 17:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Preciso de sua ajuda com as barras de
navegação. Eu tentei instalar em uma Wiki mas não funcionou muito bem. eu testei a template com a skin monobook e funcionou como eu queria, mas mudando para o visual da Wikia não funciona. o que tem de errado? Você entende
português? eu não entendo muito bem Inglês.
Alysson Zero (
talk)
15:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Renaming proposed for Category:Computer science departments in Great Britain to Category:Computer science departments in the United Kingdom & Category:Computer science institutes in Great Britain to Category:Computer science institutes in the United Kingdom as "the United Kingdom" is the usual term, other than for a few mainly historical categories Hugo999 ( talk) 06:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruud, on Academic genealogy of computer scientists I saw you recently adding an external link to the AI Genealogy Project.
For your information, I have created a template for adding entries to the AI Genealogy Project, based on the one for the Mathematics Genealogy Project, and used it already for some AI scientists. -- SchreyP ( messages) 22:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thanku very much. Please keep on suggesting for improvement. REGARDS, Pranav Manghat ( talk) 18:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruud. I saw you've imported quite a lot of pages for C reference to wikibooks. Have you finished your work? I ask because I want to start the cleanup of these pages, as the consensus at Talk:C standard library#Pages for each function and WP:NOTMANUAL seems to be pretty much established. Thanks! 1exec1 ( talk) 20:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi again! I saw that you haven't had time to do the imports yet. Maybe it would be better if I asked for import permission and did bulk of the work myself? I think there's no reason to wait any more, since the consensus over the cleanup to be implemented is pretty much established. Also, Wikipedia:India Education Program/Courses/Fall 2011/Data Structures and Algorithms has extended the deadlines, so I think they should be able to complete their work in Wikibooks. 1exec1 ( talk) 12:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
the image that i have uploaded isn't a scan of any book but created by my own in MS ppt but needless to say i made the same by consulting the book mentioned and then uploaded it -- Aamiya cchakraborty ( talk) 06:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
.tif
is an unusual file format for export from PPT, but common for scanning.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
09:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Looks like just a coincidence, and should probably be deleted as per consensus. Thanks for pointing it out, though. – Ilyanep (Talk) 08:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I am working on the page Double-ended priority queue under the India Education Program. Thanks a lot for your feedback on the course page. Pratik Lahoti (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruud!
Thanks for your signature, which means a lot to me, especially since we have sometimes disagreed about content and tone, and you have an annoying habit of being right in those disagreements.
Sincerely, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 16:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I have just blanked User:Netra Nahar/Artificial Intelligence and Data Mining. They have now re-posted there all the material that you rev-deleted as copyright violation from Artificial Intelligence in Data Mining. I left them a warning but the user page may need rev-del too. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 17:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey thanks for your concern. I appreciate that. Okay got it now. And thanks for the link, din't know the path format to get to these articles. aηsuмaη ༽Ϟ 11:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with you submitting a new RM for Shell sort, but you should not reopen the previously closed discussion and modify it. You took a position on the move. Glrx ( talk) 20:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
{{ science}} Hi Ruud, I am trying to make an afrikaans version from the Template:Science, but for some reason it is not showing [show] and [hide] (in afrikaans it will be wys and versteek), but it is showing [undefined]. So know I am wondering if it has to do with the coding from the common.js page? I am thinking that the code from template does not match with the code from common.js.
![]() New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Ruud Koot! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
Hello, Ruud Koot.
Could you please state your reason for this edit: [25]? You have not supplied an edit summary.
Regards,
Fleet Command ( talk) 06:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ruud Koot,
I didn't want them to make a huge deal out of it. I'll let the admin know that you and Parsons43 meant well. The best way to avoid situations like this is to always use the "Preview" button first. Hopefully nothing like this will happen again. Have a nice day :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadiomals ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed you are listed at Wikipedia:Translators available. Could you please take a look at a post at Talk:Battle of Vukovar#Next steps: a call for assistance and advise whether you might be able to help in terms of a Dutch translation of summary of the article lead? Thanks.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 20:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
ManishEarth Talk • Stalk 10:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
With respect to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_13#Category:Dependently_typed_formal_languages renaming from Category:Dependently typed formal languages to Category:Dependently typed programming languages, note that while all the entries are formal languages, they are not all programming languages. Some are specification languages. This error needs to be tidied up so misinformation on this common misunderstanding is not propagated on Wikipedia. In the circumstances, I would recommend a new Category:Dependently typed specification languages for the specification languages, perhaps under an umbrella category of Category:Dependently typed formal languages, which would cover both. Would you like to do the honours since you created the new sub-category? — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 18:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you tell me wether my carg functions page exists in wikipedia or not Madhusudan 05:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I do not quite understand why
12:34, 31 October 2011 Ruud Koot (talk | contribs) (103,570 bytes) (remove inappropriate self-referential example)
I do not care much about the removal, but does it violate anything? What have you meant by "inappropriate" ?
Thanks, -- Comps ( talk) 14:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I had missed that. I think I've undone the duplication now. -- Lambiam 20:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Thanks a lot. No I am not, I am using Duplication detector for copyvio. But how to find the URL ?? Is there any other way other then Google Search ?? aηsuмaη ༽Ϟ 16:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I moved the discussion on the GNOME project to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Gnome#Discussion. I wanted to let you know as a courtesy in case you wanted to adjust the language for the change in context, or remove your other comment. Hope the move doesn't seem overly disruptive. Thanks. -- Pnm ( talk) 18:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Apart from the fact I see no concensus for the move to Computer Science on the Cryptography wikiproject talk page, the move is wrong. Cryptography should be put under Mathematics. Crypto was being used about 2000 years before computers came about: Caesar cipher. Are you claiming Caesar did Computer Science? -- DanielPharos ( talk) 20:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, when you PROD an article, could I trouble you to provide an informative rationale for the benefit of any newbies who may not understand, for example, "nn/or", and for the deletion log. Even just links to the relevant policies, like WP:NN/ WP:OR would be more helpful. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I saw you proposed a merge for Template:DBLP and Template:DBLP name. Is that technically possible? Debresser ( talk) 06:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
All instances of {{ DBLP name}} have been changed to {{ DBLP}}. And the name parameter is gone. As is the need to add the first letter of the name as a separate parameter. This has been avoided by using code {{lc:{{padright:|1|{{{id}}}}}}}. But the downside is that now the use of an "id" parameter is mandatory. The technical reason is that a page link with "Hoare:C=_A=_R=" e.g. is seen as a parameter called "Hoare:C=". In addition, I have fixed many incorrect usages, most of them connected with adding ".html" to the parameters. I have added a warning against this in the (adopted) documentation. Debresser ( talk) 15:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm writing to request a favor. The India Education Program pilot is concluding in Pune, India. It has been extraordinarily challenging and a series of learnings have emerged from the pilot that we intend to take on board to inform the way forward. I had promised an honest, open and comprehensive review. There are multiple ways that we are trying to collate and distill these learnings. One of these is that the Foundation has commissioned a study to do in depth interviews with a wide variety of folks who were directly or indirectly involved in the pilot. The include discussions with students, Ambassadors, faculty as well as members of the global community such as yourself. I thought it would be really particularly useful if we could get your views. You have been involved in the project (albeit not as part of the formal project structure.) I thank you for your involvement. You have made some interesting and insightful comments in the discussions you have participated in. Would you be willing and available for the person working on this study so that she can get your feedback and suggestions and comments? If so, would you let me know on my talk page? Do also let me know how I can have her reach out to you. Many thanks in advance. Hisham ( talk) 10:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes I know my edit (I thought I had corrected it, but that was another one). Your edit is wrong (it doesnt follow the policy too, especially wp:PIPING#Section_and_anchor_point_linking - I am no expert in disambiguation pages, so I have asked an member of the project to help Christian75 ( talk) 20:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
conj
. I moved the link to the description, where you are more free to pipe as you want ("For links in the description, link to a redirect or use an anchor-point link with piping to display text similar to the article title."). But you still have to follow: "When piping is used on a disambiguation page to link to an article section, the link should be in the description, and should avoid surprising the reader. The text of the link should not be the title of a different article."
Christian75 (
talk)
15:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
R, please comment at Talk:Computer_science#Feb_2011_re-org. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The editor had not touched the review in a month, and when it takes that long to get anything started, the review is considered abandoned. If he returns at some point and the article's still waiting for review, that user can always start it then. There's a review drive going on though so someone will review it quickly most likely. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi! As you were very active in discussions about the India Education Program's Pune pilot, I wanted to draw your attention to Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Analysis, a page that documents our analysis plan for the next few months. I encourage you to join the discussion if you have any thoughts. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) ( talk) 23:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar |
A barnstar for our one and only type theorist from Utrecht :-) Sławomir Biały ( talk) 15:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC) |
Are you sure you've tagged those properly? Shouldn't they be puppets of ERfan111? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I noticed this discussion didn't result in any action, but I think there's consensus to restructure the article as you proposed. Are you comfortable moving Software license agreement to End-user license agreement? (There's a talk-page conflict.) If not I'll post a formal move request on Software license agreement. – Pnm ( talk) 20:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
could you please have a look at Template_talk:MacTutor#A_proposal? We would like to downgrade O'Connor & Robertson to editors, and add an author field. Is this possible/reasonable?
Another option is to set OC and R to be the default values of the author fields, with the possibility to modify them.
Thank you very much, Sasha ( talk) 20:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Template:1911 POV has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Alpha_Quadrant
(talk)
02:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Quite wierdly, the latter was the sockmaster in the SPI, but the real sockmaster is Comps. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
A complaint about you related to your conduct with Commitment ordering has been posted in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 89.138.17.92 ( talk) 09:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Ruud. Could you add a comment on Talk:Snapshot_isolation explaining why you added the "neutrality disputed" tag to the main page? I'm sure you have valid reasons, but in their absence it's going to be hard to know how to resolve the problem. -- Chris Purcell ( talk) 09:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Never mind, I think I've worked it out. I assume the tag you added was supposed to link to the discussion on Talk:Commitment ordering, but actually only linked to a non-existent subsection of Talk:Snapshot isolation. I've made the latter link to the former. -- Chris Purcell ( talk) 10:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)