![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Could you explain what the issue is with linking to youtube? I went to WP:YOUTUBE and it explains that there is not a blanket ban on youtube links. I can imagine links to youtube can be concerning due to likelihood of copyright violations, as well as spamminess due to people self-promoting their own videos. However, the 3Blue1Brown essence of linear algebra has essentially become the go to video series recommendation that I encounter on forums when people ask for help with understanding linear algebra, so I feel its inclusion is warranted as a valuable learning aid especially given that there are currently no other video resources in that external link section. Thank you for your time. JustOneMore ( talk) 22:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Currently I am in a somewhat excited mood about -as it appears to me- WP-customary behaviour against editors, not only in the usual realm of those who taste like newbies or not-full-blown professionals, who dare to oppose to reverting their attempts, where Mbachtold belongs to, but mostly because of the deleting and closing of matters belonging to Michael Hardy. I consider it to be beyond me to discuss this matter, I just remark that I already "know" Izno, and that I have seen Admins at work, and -predominantly- that I rather would retain MH in exchange for some of these admins.
Nevertheless, I wouldn't bother you, if it were not for
Your comments are laced with personal attacks, typically a sign of immature frustration, and that puts so many editors off that you are not likely to make any converts.
stated in your "delayed reply" at Talk:function. Disregarding any context I agree to the first part, consider the second to be speculative and needlessly offensive, and bemoan the last part -especially in its setting of newbie vs. editors in good standing- as illustrating a blockheadedness within established editors.
Since I involved myself I report my view. Considering "f is a function of x" as improvable is not a bad thing, reverting Mbachtold for involving "f(x)" neither. Starting to go at war with DeaconVorbis is not an advisable move, but here you can find already at least a relative maximum of drive-away reasons, but similarly, D.Lazard is likely to have a threatening eye (3RR) on the status quo. Reversion of my effort by D. Eppstein may be debatable, too, but I honestly still estimate my suggestion to be a viable compromise, but I am not sufficiently interested in running against walls. By requesting a citation for the longstanding and questionable formulation, Mbachtold is, of course, sort of against divine right, and this almost demands for calling him Randy (linking there is imho a still more subtle offense by an ADMIN - quod licet iovi, ...).
Is it allowed to call this a crossing of Rubicon? The debate about the placement of a citation not backing a statement is just a bitter cherry on this sh*t-cake about a not fully consistent, but widespread formulation, where WP feels no responsibility to right this small wrong. Who "makes converts", and who "drives away" whom?
From my (short) involvement (visit Mbachtold's TP, in case you're interested) I can report that Mbachtold is personally -above low level- interested (call it OR) in this question, so his sources are not really off track, and, imho, he has a point, he did not start "personal attacks", but rather his legitimate aspects were disrupted with WP-routine, and I consider your delayed verdict as part of this disruption, belonging to the same stinky routine that also works against MH.
I regret that this grew so long. In case of courtesy pings being de rigeur above (I'm not sufficiently versed), please, let me know, or provide them in your scope. Purgy ( talk) 10:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Turn (geometry). Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's
talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be
blocked from editing.
The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk) 19:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Don't worry, I primarily just came here to say thanks for your support in this capital matter. However, because you mentioned to have a faint(?) memory of a source, substantiating my unsourced habit of capitalizing principal values, I want to deposit the result of some quick and dirty look-up.
Since Sine, Cosine and Tangent are one-to-one functions, their inverse functions exist and are defined as ... Arcsine, ...
Such principal values are sometimes denoted with a capital letter, but also
... notations are sometimes reversed, ... (Spanier and Oldham 1987, p. 333).Under the header "Wolfram Language" the capitalized names are used in a table to refer to the principal branch.
Regarding the complex logarithm, there seems to be a broad agreement on using exactly "Log" for its principal branch. (Who needs this?)
I'm thinking about an authentic language, or wait for some prescribed terminology. Even when I consider the discrimination by capitalizing as really useful, I won't fight against some paper shufflers. Thanks for all your efforts, and have a fine holiday. Purgy ( talk) 12:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Would you kindly and responsibly explain before you revert?
That wasn't trivia, it was vandalism. Mario was added as 4 different numbers.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Let's discuss Archimedes square root of 3 that was modified to improve the upper and lower limits of pi, once limited to 22/7. Kevin Brown's math pages cites the issue as an unsolved problem, yet he includes the correct approach along with many dead ends.
Fibonacci and Galileo make explicit Archimedes method with respect to the square root of ten , began with (3 + 1/6) square = 10 1/36, and other examples. Improvements to initial guess errors were divided by twice The initial guess, namely
1/36 was divided by 2(3 + 1/6) by inverting and multiplying...Based on the middle term of the binomial theorem, such that, in modern Vulgar fractions
1/36 x 6/38 = 1/228 which meant a second guess
(3 + 1/6 - 1/228) squared was accurate to the square of 1/228
As the 800 bce sulba-sutra estimated the square root of 2 by beginning with
(1 + 5/12) squared = (17/12)(17/12) = 289/144 = 2 + 1/144
Error 1/144 also divided by twice The initial guess, and inverted and multiplied such that
1/144 x 12/34 = 1/408 which meant a second guess
(1 + 1/3 + 1/12 - 1/408) squared was accurate to 1/408 squared
A third guess divided 1/408 by 2 (17/12 - 1/408) was accurate to 11 decimal places 800 years before Heron created a geometric version off this very old unit fraction method to calculate this class of irrational numbers
Milo
Milogardner ( talk) 14:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Bill, hope all's well. I had a question about the figure you added in this edit: according to the text, the distance b should be the sum of the lengths of the two legs of the right triangle, but in the figure it is the hypotenuse. Which description is in error? (As is probably obvious, I haven't taken the time to think through the content of the article at all yet.) Thanks, JBL ( talk) 19:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey there. You reverted my changes at nonagon, and obviously that's fine. WP:BRD But I didn't see anything on the talk page from you. I re-segregated the approximations and called out their (internally consistant) accuracies without putting in any of the other stuff. Could you have a look and let me know if this works for you?
Hello, sorry if I bother you, but could you please check if the intro of this page sounds natural and fluid? If you're willing to, I thank you very much. Drow ( talk) 09:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
You have reverted an addition that I made to the Foata's transition lemma entry in the article on permutations, stating that "secondary ref. in English is better than primary ref. in French." Well, maybe I agree, but here is my rationale: (i) it's an entry called "Foata's transition lemma," and I believe that it should point to the place where the correspondence was established; (ii) the article on permutations is already full of references to technical papers and advanced books; (iii) the world is a multilingual place, as you might know.
So, as a compromise, I suggest that a reference be given to some textbook (in whatever language) together with the reference to the original derivation, that I located precisely and may be useful to readers of the Wikipedia article. B.t.w., the book by Bóna is not the best place to point a curious reader; i.m.h.o., the presentation of the usefulness of Foata's correspondence at an elementary level is much better in the "baby" R. Sedgewick & P. Flajolet, "An Intro. to the Analysis of Algorithms", 2nd ed., Chap. 7.
Best regards,
jrgmendonca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrgmendonca ( talk • contribs) 21:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I saw the reversion you made on the content I added.
What should I do to get some attention to the global equality of a^b=c!+1 and a^b=c!-1?
I believe both are interesting and relevant in number theory.
Anyway I'm a student so I understand that my work is not professional and my poor formation.
But I had some ideas about different subjects that were "stolen" from me by others so they could put their names on it. So I tried to be more active this this time.
Anyway, sorry if I resulted bothering.
Álex Gómez 1813 ( talk) 06:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Wcherowi. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Why did you remove the link to "wheat" in this page? — Eli355 ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Please click the wiki markup on the ISBN changes I made. I think you will see they are all valid. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
"a corresponding element[without s]". Singular. Doesn't allow the correspondence to assign multiple elements. If you still have the hurge to introduce even more precision than that, add it, instead of reverting to a sentence that is indeed strictly defining the constant function only. Cactus0192837465 ( talk) 04:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
If you say that to get the number the application of the function sinus to the number 42 is "pointwise," then how does the normal function application look like in your opinion? -- Alexey Muranov ( talk) 21:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Here is an example of actual pointwise application: let be the function on real numbers that for each yields the operation of multiplication by , and let be the identity function on the reals. Then the pointwise applictaion of to yields the function . -- Alexey Muranov ( talk) 21:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, one should not say "poinwise sum of the result of and the result of " when what one means is the poinwise sum of and . -- Alexey Muranov ( talk) 08:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I have tried on several occasions to correct an error in this section. My corrections have been undone each time. If an observer in a two dimensional world observed a spherical balloon pass through, the observer would not, as the error suggests, see a point, then a circle getting larger, then getting smaller until it became a point just before disappearing. A circle on a plane can only be observed from a position above or below the plane. An observer within the plane would at best see a line segment. The observer would be able to infer the circle by making observations of the line segment through changes in position along the x,y axis to discover an arc length, but the observer would be unable to see the circle. Robin Les ( talk) 22:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly
reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at
Euclidean geometry. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "
edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Dr. K. 04:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I saw that you discussed on Talk:Search problem#Needs improvement. You may be interested in discussing my suggestion to delete this article, after integrating its valuable parts (if any) where they fit. Best regards - Jochen Burghardt ( talk) 12:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello.
Recently (March 13) I added an external link to the article titled "Factorization". Shortly after that you reverted the edit, and explained:
Reverted good faith edits by Evan2184 (talk): As per WP:ELNO #1
I wish to apologize for violating Wikipedia policies. There was no ill intent and I appreciate that you referred to the edit as "good faith". I am quite new to editing on Wikipedia and I have been learning through trial and error, and through the helpful advice of other editors.
In addition to reading Wikipedia documentation, I have tried to better understand policies and guidelines by reading as many other articles as possible.
I added the edit to the External Links section of the article titled "Factorization" because I felt the page the edit linked to elaborated on the topic and contained examples and explanations that helped the reader gain a better understanding. I have seen other math articles where the External Links section contained links to pages that were elaborations of the article's topic. For instance, the article "Completing the Square" contains this link:
https://study.com/academy/lesson/how-to-complete-the-square.html
Also, the article "Ruffini's Rule" contains this link:
https://www.purplemath.com/modules/synthdiv.htm
In your revert you cited reason #1 of WP:ELNO. I would agree that the link in my edit is not a unique resource. But I'm not sure the other two links could be classified as unique resources either.
So, perhaps it's a bit of a gray area and a judgment call.
I would be grateful if you would reconsider accepting my edit. But mainly I want to improve my understanding of best practices and hope you can offer some guidance.
Thank you very much!
Evan Evan2184 ( talk) 01:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
generally avoid providing external links to: 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article.
Hi! I saw that you contributed (in 2016) to the article search problem; so you might be interested in the discussion at Talk:search problem#Undone deletion. Best regards - Jochen Burghardt ( talk) 20:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
− |
Hello.
This thing is called the minus sign. It is a mathematical symbol, not a
general-typography device. When you
replace “-” with it in math formulae, you make a good job. When you insert it (or other characters from the
Mathematical Operators block) to a running English text, you promote ignorance and stupidity on par with numerous “fixes” by IPs and red-faced accounts which are usually—on this site—bluntly reverted. Just avoid touching any typography in a running text if you are “too busy” to look at respective manuals.
Incnis Mrsi (
talk) 14:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi@Wcherowi ,You recently reverted my edit in the page /info/en/?search=Division_by_zero ;where in the elementary arithmetic section I had replaced 'cookies' with 'apples'. You reverted saying that my edit was meaningless. But the word 'apples' has 1 character less than the word 'cookies';so by 11 replacements we get 11 characters less in a encyclopedia bearing same meaning. What do you say? A Seeker of Truth ( talk) 04:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)-- A Seeker of Truth ( talk) 04:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --
Rupert Loup (
talk) 00:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
The formulas which have been deleted came from refereed Math journal. I was thinking of including more information, but you deleted the information I added due COI. The page contains little information compared to what is there in literature. Only researchers in this area can contribute to such pages. Please check for the references in such cases, like the one which is not working on that page, and comes from a non-referred source.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Derived set (mathematics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Disjoint ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I very rarely edit Wikipedia, so I am not deeply familiar with the procedures. The statements I changed were added in 2011 with no citation:
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/71.201.65.77 They're wrong, see
https://math.stackexchange.com/q/3540720/ I do not think it is possible to find any citation for there being 5 such graphs and not 2, but this fact is fairly trivial to verify with modern graph theory software. For example, with Mathematica and gtools/nauty: Select[Import["!geng -d3 -D3 12", "Graph6"], GraphAutomorphismGroup[#] === PermutationGroup[{}] &]
(and also try for smaller vertex counts than 12 to see that there are none). My intention was to correct a mistake. Can you help me do this while ensuring that procedures are followed?
BarroColorado (
talk) 08:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Please explain why you are any more qualified than I am to judge the reliability of a biographical source on Lewis Carroll. One only needs to use their eyes to see that the photos in question are fake, anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarwinGalileiHerschelHuygens ( talk • contribs) 21:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Re: your revision https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Multiplication_of_vectors&oldid=935778784
Can you please explain:
-- Eassin ( talk) 18:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I was going to try to improve this article. It is this week's article for improvement. You persuaded me not to bother.
Since this is in your bailiwick, maybe you could improve it. You know better, so have at it.
7&6=thirteen (
☎) 20:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I am a first-time contributor to Wiki and am unsure of proper protocol. I replaced the previous version of the "alternative proof" section in Condorcet's Jury Theorem here (which had no discernible proof) to an inductive proof that is my own work. You flagged the section as having to citations, and I am unsure how to proceed, or whether the proof currently on the page belongs there at all.
Apologies for editing your personal talk page - again, I am new at this. Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Hi, Wcherowi! I have noticed your revert of an external link at Median (geometry). Could you be more specific re the mentioned external link and the 19 situations mentioned at WP:ELNO, which one do you consider that it applies to the external link? (Thanks!)-- 109.166.130.189 ( talk) 22:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.But also the answer to your question is 1 and some nonempty subset of {10, 11, 12}. -- JBL ( talk) 23:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi again! Re the reversion at Angle bisector theorem described as improper English, what exactly is improper in using the subjunctive mood of the verb to be instead of the imperative construction with let? (Perhaps another description would be more accurate, and perhaps the reversion be annuled!)-- 109.166.130.189 ( talk) 23:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I noticed you removed an entry in Snakes and ladders. What do you mean "unsupported trivia"? 172.250.44.165 ( talk) 20:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The two statements are not equivalent. While it is true that only 10 digit numbers were issued before 1 January, 2007, after 1 January, 2007, both 10 and 13 digit numbers were issued - quite a few books even contain both a 10 and a 13 digit ISBN. It is fairly straightforward to convert between 10 and 13 digit numbers - they are basically the same number, with different check digits appended plus the 13 digit version has the "bookland" prefix prepended to make it compatible with the EAN code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jost Riedel ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, can you explain to me or point me to the direction that I can understand this (as I'm a newcomer), I added these math tags in the article based on another feature article that I saw before with the logic that these tags make variables (and other things) more readable – Erfan Talk☻ 16:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
The paragraph about the perimeter of general shapes in Perimeter is flawed.
In some cases the integrand is a Transcendental function, so can't be replaced with an algebraic formula. Sometimes the integral of transcendental function is algebraic, but even then there is no guarantee that the equation will have an algebraic solution, making determining L impracticable.
At the moment it's like saying a quintic equation must be solved to determine L, with no mention that is rarely possible. After thinking a moment, it will be sufficient to say "must be replaceable with by" instead of "must be replaced with by"
Also, ellipses are a common shape with a perimeter that's impracticable to determine, since they require Elliptic integrals. Using them as an example could be useful. The Ellipse section gives a formula for the perimeter using elliptic integrals, so should probably also be linked to.
Carandol ( talk) 22:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Where would be the right place then? This seems as good as any, unless there's a page somewhere, listing problems like that. 'We have learned to live with this' but can we expect the reader to? Are they likely to even be aware there is a problem? Carandol ( talk) 20:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. I'd put the link on 'the length of the path', the length of the path
Fine by me. That'll more than cover all the concerns I originally had. I think I originally considered that option, but ruled out for reasons I've now sure don't hold water.
The main reason I didn't use the Perimeter talk page was that it was last used in 2015 so a new edit probably wouldn't be noticed. Obviously, this exchange demonstrates that I was wrong.
Thanks for reviewing my attempt to improve Coset. Perhaps, because I am not a mathematician, I was unsure of the notation used in the article to define a coset, and confused about the exact number of cosets of a subgroup.
The definition includes the phrase, "given an element g of a group G." Because G has eight elements, I expected there would be eight values of g, and therefore eight left cosets and eight right cosets. However, in the illustration the article said, "There are four left cosets of H," leaving me confused about exactly what was meant by "coset". Is there one coset for each element of G, or is a coset a coset only if it is different from the other cosets?
I think the illustration actually shows the quotient group G/H, rather than all the left cosets of H in G.
Please excuse my poor word choice. I did my best to make the article more understandable by non-experts. I hope you will consider making a more skillful improvement than I was able to do.
I will watch this spot in case you decide to comment.
Thanks for all your valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Comfr ( talk) 16:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Could you explain what the issue is with linking to youtube? I went to WP:YOUTUBE and it explains that there is not a blanket ban on youtube links. I can imagine links to youtube can be concerning due to likelihood of copyright violations, as well as spamminess due to people self-promoting their own videos. However, the 3Blue1Brown essence of linear algebra has essentially become the go to video series recommendation that I encounter on forums when people ask for help with understanding linear algebra, so I feel its inclusion is warranted as a valuable learning aid especially given that there are currently no other video resources in that external link section. Thank you for your time. JustOneMore ( talk) 22:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Currently I am in a somewhat excited mood about -as it appears to me- WP-customary behaviour against editors, not only in the usual realm of those who taste like newbies or not-full-blown professionals, who dare to oppose to reverting their attempts, where Mbachtold belongs to, but mostly because of the deleting and closing of matters belonging to Michael Hardy. I consider it to be beyond me to discuss this matter, I just remark that I already "know" Izno, and that I have seen Admins at work, and -predominantly- that I rather would retain MH in exchange for some of these admins.
Nevertheless, I wouldn't bother you, if it were not for
Your comments are laced with personal attacks, typically a sign of immature frustration, and that puts so many editors off that you are not likely to make any converts.
stated in your "delayed reply" at Talk:function. Disregarding any context I agree to the first part, consider the second to be speculative and needlessly offensive, and bemoan the last part -especially in its setting of newbie vs. editors in good standing- as illustrating a blockheadedness within established editors.
Since I involved myself I report my view. Considering "f is a function of x" as improvable is not a bad thing, reverting Mbachtold for involving "f(x)" neither. Starting to go at war with DeaconVorbis is not an advisable move, but here you can find already at least a relative maximum of drive-away reasons, but similarly, D.Lazard is likely to have a threatening eye (3RR) on the status quo. Reversion of my effort by D. Eppstein may be debatable, too, but I honestly still estimate my suggestion to be a viable compromise, but I am not sufficiently interested in running against walls. By requesting a citation for the longstanding and questionable formulation, Mbachtold is, of course, sort of against divine right, and this almost demands for calling him Randy (linking there is imho a still more subtle offense by an ADMIN - quod licet iovi, ...).
Is it allowed to call this a crossing of Rubicon? The debate about the placement of a citation not backing a statement is just a bitter cherry on this sh*t-cake about a not fully consistent, but widespread formulation, where WP feels no responsibility to right this small wrong. Who "makes converts", and who "drives away" whom?
From my (short) involvement (visit Mbachtold's TP, in case you're interested) I can report that Mbachtold is personally -above low level- interested (call it OR) in this question, so his sources are not really off track, and, imho, he has a point, he did not start "personal attacks", but rather his legitimate aspects were disrupted with WP-routine, and I consider your delayed verdict as part of this disruption, belonging to the same stinky routine that also works against MH.
I regret that this grew so long. In case of courtesy pings being de rigeur above (I'm not sufficiently versed), please, let me know, or provide them in your scope. Purgy ( talk) 10:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Turn (geometry). Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's
talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be
blocked from editing.
The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk) 19:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Don't worry, I primarily just came here to say thanks for your support in this capital matter. However, because you mentioned to have a faint(?) memory of a source, substantiating my unsourced habit of capitalizing principal values, I want to deposit the result of some quick and dirty look-up.
Since Sine, Cosine and Tangent are one-to-one functions, their inverse functions exist and are defined as ... Arcsine, ...
Such principal values are sometimes denoted with a capital letter, but also
... notations are sometimes reversed, ... (Spanier and Oldham 1987, p. 333).Under the header "Wolfram Language" the capitalized names are used in a table to refer to the principal branch.
Regarding the complex logarithm, there seems to be a broad agreement on using exactly "Log" for its principal branch. (Who needs this?)
I'm thinking about an authentic language, or wait for some prescribed terminology. Even when I consider the discrimination by capitalizing as really useful, I won't fight against some paper shufflers. Thanks for all your efforts, and have a fine holiday. Purgy ( talk) 12:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Would you kindly and responsibly explain before you revert?
That wasn't trivia, it was vandalism. Mario was added as 4 different numbers.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Let's discuss Archimedes square root of 3 that was modified to improve the upper and lower limits of pi, once limited to 22/7. Kevin Brown's math pages cites the issue as an unsolved problem, yet he includes the correct approach along with many dead ends.
Fibonacci and Galileo make explicit Archimedes method with respect to the square root of ten , began with (3 + 1/6) square = 10 1/36, and other examples. Improvements to initial guess errors were divided by twice The initial guess, namely
1/36 was divided by 2(3 + 1/6) by inverting and multiplying...Based on the middle term of the binomial theorem, such that, in modern Vulgar fractions
1/36 x 6/38 = 1/228 which meant a second guess
(3 + 1/6 - 1/228) squared was accurate to the square of 1/228
As the 800 bce sulba-sutra estimated the square root of 2 by beginning with
(1 + 5/12) squared = (17/12)(17/12) = 289/144 = 2 + 1/144
Error 1/144 also divided by twice The initial guess, and inverted and multiplied such that
1/144 x 12/34 = 1/408 which meant a second guess
(1 + 1/3 + 1/12 - 1/408) squared was accurate to 1/408 squared
A third guess divided 1/408 by 2 (17/12 - 1/408) was accurate to 11 decimal places 800 years before Heron created a geometric version off this very old unit fraction method to calculate this class of irrational numbers
Milo
Milogardner ( talk) 14:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Bill, hope all's well. I had a question about the figure you added in this edit: according to the text, the distance b should be the sum of the lengths of the two legs of the right triangle, but in the figure it is the hypotenuse. Which description is in error? (As is probably obvious, I haven't taken the time to think through the content of the article at all yet.) Thanks, JBL ( talk) 19:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey there. You reverted my changes at nonagon, and obviously that's fine. WP:BRD But I didn't see anything on the talk page from you. I re-segregated the approximations and called out their (internally consistant) accuracies without putting in any of the other stuff. Could you have a look and let me know if this works for you?
Hello, sorry if I bother you, but could you please check if the intro of this page sounds natural and fluid? If you're willing to, I thank you very much. Drow ( talk) 09:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
You have reverted an addition that I made to the Foata's transition lemma entry in the article on permutations, stating that "secondary ref. in English is better than primary ref. in French." Well, maybe I agree, but here is my rationale: (i) it's an entry called "Foata's transition lemma," and I believe that it should point to the place where the correspondence was established; (ii) the article on permutations is already full of references to technical papers and advanced books; (iii) the world is a multilingual place, as you might know.
So, as a compromise, I suggest that a reference be given to some textbook (in whatever language) together with the reference to the original derivation, that I located precisely and may be useful to readers of the Wikipedia article. B.t.w., the book by Bóna is not the best place to point a curious reader; i.m.h.o., the presentation of the usefulness of Foata's correspondence at an elementary level is much better in the "baby" R. Sedgewick & P. Flajolet, "An Intro. to the Analysis of Algorithms", 2nd ed., Chap. 7.
Best regards,
jrgmendonca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrgmendonca ( talk • contribs) 21:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I saw the reversion you made on the content I added.
What should I do to get some attention to the global equality of a^b=c!+1 and a^b=c!-1?
I believe both are interesting and relevant in number theory.
Anyway I'm a student so I understand that my work is not professional and my poor formation.
But I had some ideas about different subjects that were "stolen" from me by others so they could put their names on it. So I tried to be more active this this time.
Anyway, sorry if I resulted bothering.
Álex Gómez 1813 ( talk) 06:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Wcherowi. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Why did you remove the link to "wheat" in this page? — Eli355 ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Please click the wiki markup on the ISBN changes I made. I think you will see they are all valid. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
"a corresponding element[without s]". Singular. Doesn't allow the correspondence to assign multiple elements. If you still have the hurge to introduce even more precision than that, add it, instead of reverting to a sentence that is indeed strictly defining the constant function only. Cactus0192837465 ( talk) 04:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
If you say that to get the number the application of the function sinus to the number 42 is "pointwise," then how does the normal function application look like in your opinion? -- Alexey Muranov ( talk) 21:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Here is an example of actual pointwise application: let be the function on real numbers that for each yields the operation of multiplication by , and let be the identity function on the reals. Then the pointwise applictaion of to yields the function . -- Alexey Muranov ( talk) 21:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, one should not say "poinwise sum of the result of and the result of " when what one means is the poinwise sum of and . -- Alexey Muranov ( talk) 08:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I have tried on several occasions to correct an error in this section. My corrections have been undone each time. If an observer in a two dimensional world observed a spherical balloon pass through, the observer would not, as the error suggests, see a point, then a circle getting larger, then getting smaller until it became a point just before disappearing. A circle on a plane can only be observed from a position above or below the plane. An observer within the plane would at best see a line segment. The observer would be able to infer the circle by making observations of the line segment through changes in position along the x,y axis to discover an arc length, but the observer would be unable to see the circle. Robin Les ( talk) 22:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly
reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at
Euclidean geometry. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "
edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Dr. K. 04:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I saw that you discussed on Talk:Search problem#Needs improvement. You may be interested in discussing my suggestion to delete this article, after integrating its valuable parts (if any) where they fit. Best regards - Jochen Burghardt ( talk) 12:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello.
Recently (March 13) I added an external link to the article titled "Factorization". Shortly after that you reverted the edit, and explained:
Reverted good faith edits by Evan2184 (talk): As per WP:ELNO #1
I wish to apologize for violating Wikipedia policies. There was no ill intent and I appreciate that you referred to the edit as "good faith". I am quite new to editing on Wikipedia and I have been learning through trial and error, and through the helpful advice of other editors.
In addition to reading Wikipedia documentation, I have tried to better understand policies and guidelines by reading as many other articles as possible.
I added the edit to the External Links section of the article titled "Factorization" because I felt the page the edit linked to elaborated on the topic and contained examples and explanations that helped the reader gain a better understanding. I have seen other math articles where the External Links section contained links to pages that were elaborations of the article's topic. For instance, the article "Completing the Square" contains this link:
https://study.com/academy/lesson/how-to-complete-the-square.html
Also, the article "Ruffini's Rule" contains this link:
https://www.purplemath.com/modules/synthdiv.htm
In your revert you cited reason #1 of WP:ELNO. I would agree that the link in my edit is not a unique resource. But I'm not sure the other two links could be classified as unique resources either.
So, perhaps it's a bit of a gray area and a judgment call.
I would be grateful if you would reconsider accepting my edit. But mainly I want to improve my understanding of best practices and hope you can offer some guidance.
Thank you very much!
Evan Evan2184 ( talk) 01:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
generally avoid providing external links to: 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article.
Hi! I saw that you contributed (in 2016) to the article search problem; so you might be interested in the discussion at Talk:search problem#Undone deletion. Best regards - Jochen Burghardt ( talk) 20:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
− |
Hello.
This thing is called the minus sign. It is a mathematical symbol, not a
general-typography device. When you
replace “-” with it in math formulae, you make a good job. When you insert it (or other characters from the
Mathematical Operators block) to a running English text, you promote ignorance and stupidity on par with numerous “fixes” by IPs and red-faced accounts which are usually—on this site—bluntly reverted. Just avoid touching any typography in a running text if you are “too busy” to look at respective manuals.
Incnis Mrsi (
talk) 14:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi@Wcherowi ,You recently reverted my edit in the page /info/en/?search=Division_by_zero ;where in the elementary arithmetic section I had replaced 'cookies' with 'apples'. You reverted saying that my edit was meaningless. But the word 'apples' has 1 character less than the word 'cookies';so by 11 replacements we get 11 characters less in a encyclopedia bearing same meaning. What do you say? A Seeker of Truth ( talk) 04:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)-- A Seeker of Truth ( talk) 04:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --
Rupert Loup (
talk) 00:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
The formulas which have been deleted came from refereed Math journal. I was thinking of including more information, but you deleted the information I added due COI. The page contains little information compared to what is there in literature. Only researchers in this area can contribute to such pages. Please check for the references in such cases, like the one which is not working on that page, and comes from a non-referred source.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Derived set (mathematics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Disjoint ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I very rarely edit Wikipedia, so I am not deeply familiar with the procedures. The statements I changed were added in 2011 with no citation:
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/71.201.65.77 They're wrong, see
https://math.stackexchange.com/q/3540720/ I do not think it is possible to find any citation for there being 5 such graphs and not 2, but this fact is fairly trivial to verify with modern graph theory software. For example, with Mathematica and gtools/nauty: Select[Import["!geng -d3 -D3 12", "Graph6"], GraphAutomorphismGroup[#] === PermutationGroup[{}] &]
(and also try for smaller vertex counts than 12 to see that there are none). My intention was to correct a mistake. Can you help me do this while ensuring that procedures are followed?
BarroColorado (
talk) 08:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Please explain why you are any more qualified than I am to judge the reliability of a biographical source on Lewis Carroll. One only needs to use their eyes to see that the photos in question are fake, anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarwinGalileiHerschelHuygens ( talk • contribs) 21:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Re: your revision https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Multiplication_of_vectors&oldid=935778784
Can you please explain:
-- Eassin ( talk) 18:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I was going to try to improve this article. It is this week's article for improvement. You persuaded me not to bother.
Since this is in your bailiwick, maybe you could improve it. You know better, so have at it.
7&6=thirteen (
☎) 20:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I am a first-time contributor to Wiki and am unsure of proper protocol. I replaced the previous version of the "alternative proof" section in Condorcet's Jury Theorem here (which had no discernible proof) to an inductive proof that is my own work. You flagged the section as having to citations, and I am unsure how to proceed, or whether the proof currently on the page belongs there at all.
Apologies for editing your personal talk page - again, I am new at this. Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Hi, Wcherowi! I have noticed your revert of an external link at Median (geometry). Could you be more specific re the mentioned external link and the 19 situations mentioned at WP:ELNO, which one do you consider that it applies to the external link? (Thanks!)-- 109.166.130.189 ( talk) 22:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.But also the answer to your question is 1 and some nonempty subset of {10, 11, 12}. -- JBL ( talk) 23:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi again! Re the reversion at Angle bisector theorem described as improper English, what exactly is improper in using the subjunctive mood of the verb to be instead of the imperative construction with let? (Perhaps another description would be more accurate, and perhaps the reversion be annuled!)-- 109.166.130.189 ( talk) 23:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I noticed you removed an entry in Snakes and ladders. What do you mean "unsupported trivia"? 172.250.44.165 ( talk) 20:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The two statements are not equivalent. While it is true that only 10 digit numbers were issued before 1 January, 2007, after 1 January, 2007, both 10 and 13 digit numbers were issued - quite a few books even contain both a 10 and a 13 digit ISBN. It is fairly straightforward to convert between 10 and 13 digit numbers - they are basically the same number, with different check digits appended plus the 13 digit version has the "bookland" prefix prepended to make it compatible with the EAN code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jost Riedel ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, can you explain to me or point me to the direction that I can understand this (as I'm a newcomer), I added these math tags in the article based on another feature article that I saw before with the logic that these tags make variables (and other things) more readable – Erfan Talk☻ 16:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
The paragraph about the perimeter of general shapes in Perimeter is flawed.
In some cases the integrand is a Transcendental function, so can't be replaced with an algebraic formula. Sometimes the integral of transcendental function is algebraic, but even then there is no guarantee that the equation will have an algebraic solution, making determining L impracticable.
At the moment it's like saying a quintic equation must be solved to determine L, with no mention that is rarely possible. After thinking a moment, it will be sufficient to say "must be replaceable with by" instead of "must be replaced with by"
Also, ellipses are a common shape with a perimeter that's impracticable to determine, since they require Elliptic integrals. Using them as an example could be useful. The Ellipse section gives a formula for the perimeter using elliptic integrals, so should probably also be linked to.
Carandol ( talk) 22:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Where would be the right place then? This seems as good as any, unless there's a page somewhere, listing problems like that. 'We have learned to live with this' but can we expect the reader to? Are they likely to even be aware there is a problem? Carandol ( talk) 20:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. I'd put the link on 'the length of the path', the length of the path
Fine by me. That'll more than cover all the concerns I originally had. I think I originally considered that option, but ruled out for reasons I've now sure don't hold water.
The main reason I didn't use the Perimeter talk page was that it was last used in 2015 so a new edit probably wouldn't be noticed. Obviously, this exchange demonstrates that I was wrong.
Thanks for reviewing my attempt to improve Coset. Perhaps, because I am not a mathematician, I was unsure of the notation used in the article to define a coset, and confused about the exact number of cosets of a subgroup.
The definition includes the phrase, "given an element g of a group G." Because G has eight elements, I expected there would be eight values of g, and therefore eight left cosets and eight right cosets. However, in the illustration the article said, "There are four left cosets of H," leaving me confused about exactly what was meant by "coset". Is there one coset for each element of G, or is a coset a coset only if it is different from the other cosets?
I think the illustration actually shows the quotient group G/H, rather than all the left cosets of H in G.
Please excuse my poor word choice. I did my best to make the article more understandable by non-experts. I hope you will consider making a more skillful improvement than I was able to do.
I will watch this spot in case you decide to comment.
Thanks for all your valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Comfr ( talk) 16:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)