User talk:Gandalf61/Archive9

Statistics

I was shocked by these words that you wrote:

You would need a coefficient of determination much closer to 1 before you could conclude that there was any significant correlation.

That is nonsense!! The p-value is in fact about 10^−8; that is overwhelmingly significant. The F-statistic is the likelihood-ratio test statistic in this case. You can't judge such a thing based on the coefficient of determination without taking the sample size into account.

(At any rate, this simple least-squares regression is not the appropriate way to proceed in this case, as you'll see if you look at the scatterplot.) Michael Hardy (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You also wrote this:

You could perhaps try to filter out this noise by looking at the mean of the dependent variable values for each value of the independent variable, 1 to 8, and see if there is any correlation in this set of mean values.

That is a very very very bad idea. See ecological fallacy. Clearly you're in FAR over your head here; you don't know statistics. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without a coefficient of determination close to 1, the slope and y intercept values are meaningless

Sigh........ Look: one tries patiently to explain to naive undergraduates with no mathematical inclinations that ideas like what you wrote above are false. You claim to have some awareness of mathematics, but on this one you're comments are almost nothing but mistakes typical of that kind of student. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I see you have placed similiar feedback on WP:RD/MA. I am happy for my mistakes to be corrected. What I am not happy with is the part of your response on the ref desk that says "Gandalf is 100% ignorant of statistics even at this simple level". I request that you withdraw that personal remark, which is inappropriate for a public forum such as the ref desk, and is also not worthy of you. Gandalf61 (talk) 05:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also confused by your interpretation of the F-statistic value. I have posted a question about this in the WP:RD/MA thread, so perhaps you could respond there. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motto of the Day

Hi there, Gandalf61! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottos. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottos there or just pass this message onto your friends.

MOTD Needs Your Help!

Delivered By –pjoef (talk • contribs) 18:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proof without words

Just to let you know (in case you hadn't noticed) that one of your five GA nominations has surprisingly quickly found a reviewer and is now on hold. I hope you have time to respond. I am willing to help out with minor issues, but I probably won't find time to research sources. The reviewer has provided a number of helpful suggestions in that direction, however. Geometry guy 21:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. Yes, I saw the review - polite, thoughtful and helpful. I might find some time to work on the article, but I don't see much incentive, as it is clear the reviewer thinks it is a very long way from GA quality. Gandalf61 (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest (in my view) most of the five require significant work to reach GA level. To me, this illustrates just how orthogonal the GA criteria are to the WikiProject criteria in the case of mathematics articles. The GA criteria are not intended to be demanding, yet almost no mathematics articles meet them! (And I include here my own efforts such as Representation theory and Lie sphere geometry.)

Of the five, I think we have the best shot at a new maths GA with Mathematics and art, which has a wide appeal and a good supply of references. Complete icosahedron could get lucky on the grounds that there isn't really much to say, and the article says it. Penrose tiling has many uncited claims, which may be obvious to mathematicians, but are far from obvious to likely readers (e.g. "Attempting to tile the plane with regular pentagons must necessarily leave gaps"). I'd be disappointed in the review if it was passed without significant fixes. Jeep problem is an example of an article that could be made accessible to a wide readership, but isn't: the first section begins "There are n units of fuel stored at a fixed base." Although this isn't quite on the level of "consider a spherical cow", it is not far off. The article was written by a mathematician for mathematically educated readers and it needs some mathematical communicators to convert into something encyclopedic. Geometry guy 22:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeep Problem

Hi Gandalf61,

I reviewed Jeep Problem for GA and have placed it on hold. The article requires some work before it can be promoted to GA class, but it is a very good start. I offered some links to articles on the subject in my GA review. If you need access to copies of those articles, please email me with the requests and I'll grab them from JSTOR and send you a copy. Of particular help is the David Gale article. Not only does he illustrate Fine's solution and offer his own, Gale is a compelling writer and can illustrate a topic like this with ease. Good work on your five GA attempts. I should get to Mathematics and art sometime today or tomorrow. Protonk (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics and art

I've placed this article on hold. There are some major issues with it and a bevy of minor issues, but nothing that can't be fixed by some able wikignoming and rewriting. Protonk (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on both Mathematics and art and on Jeep problem. I am unlikely to have time to do much work on these articles myself, but I have left a note at the WikiProject Mathematics talk page to alert other editors who may be able to contribute. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Then I hope you won't take this the wrong way when I suggest that you should withdraw the GA noms that don't yet have a review pending. There is a large backlog at GAN and reviewer time spent on these reviews is non-trivial. I would rather that GA reviewers spend time reviewing articles which will be improved by an editor with a stake in the matter, as it were. Protonk (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I see no reason to withdraw my other nominations. I don't see where Wikipedia:Good articles, Wikipedia:Good article nominations or Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles requires a nominator to make a commitment to address any and all review points before they nominate an article - have I missed something ? If your reviews had highlighted a small number of issues then I might have been able to fix them, but in both reviews you are suggesting a major re-write/expansion is needed. It just seemed polite to let you know that I probably won't be undertaking this scale of work myself. However, other editors may start improving the articles, which is after all in the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. If the GA process takes a while to get round to reviewing the other articles that I have nominated then that is fine - there is no deadline ! Thank you again for your feedback. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I really don't want to be rude or unfair. GAN doesn't require that the nominator be anyone aside from a registered editor. However, in practice, most successful GA noms come from editors who are involved with the article in question and have a 'stake' in the outcome (as it were). I understand that we all have limited time, but it really seems like a waste of my time to have spent hours reviewing those two articles only to be told that my points would be responded to only if they were minor. If the articles were within a hairsbreadth of GA, my points would have been minor. But they aren't. They both require some work. As for the 'deadline', there isn't one but there are scarce resources at GAN. I'm not telling you to withdraw them. I'm asking you to. Whether you do or not is completely up to you, of course. Protonk (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest different approaches towards Jeep problem and Mathematics and art: Jeep problem clearly requires substantial rewriting and should probably be withdrawn (or failed); in contrast the basic material for Mathematics and art is in place, and the review raises multiple specific concerns which could be addressed during a reasonable hold. Geometry guy 21:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comments at EAR

Sorry that you took my comments the wrong way. I did look at the talk page in question and saw no point in butting in from the outside, not having participated in the discussions. My fist reaction was does it really matter whether the tag is put on or not? At EAR we generally point people at resolving matters on talk pages or using 3rd opinion or RFC. We might intervene with warnings to vandals or explanations of the guidelines but we generally don't get heavily involved with ongoing policy or guideline disputes. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I had naively assumed that folks at WP:EA would actually provide assistance, whereas what you are describing is more a sort of traffic control. I will know next time. Meanwhile another editor has raised an RFC about the policy proposal status, so we will see how that goes. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Timewave_zero#Redirect proposal

Notice: You commented in an Article for deletion for Timewave zero , an RFC has been opened on whether this article should be replaced with a Redirect. Please comment on the above link. Lumos3 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arithmetic

You need to be careful about some things. The graph is shown passing through (2, 5), not through (2, 6). Moreover, the y-intercept is clearly shown at 11.

1/2 is the correct coefficient of the quadratic term. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see you were looking at a different aspect of the graph. I've commented it out and will restore it after correcting it. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your roots 4+/-2i were inconsistent with your equation (1/2)(x-4)^2+3, and your diagram reflected this inconsistency. I could have fixed the roots or fixed the equation. Fixing the equation seemed simpler. Thank you for your lecture on being careful, but I don't think I'm the one who needs to take more care here. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclic permutations

Please see Talk:Repeating_decimal#Other_cyclic_permutations.--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

prod2

Assuming you don't want to speedy A New Interpretation of Odd Magic Squares in the Lo Shu format, you can add a {{prod2}} to it. It makes the deleting admin job's easier since there's no link to the WT:WPM discussion from there. Pcap ping 12:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - I've added a {{prod2}} with the same comment I made at WT:WPM. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bengeo

nice addition about St Leonards. Can you come up with a better photo? I would, but I am on the other side of the world. regardsRoundtheworld (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a photo that shows the building more clearly would be better than the current one. I will see what can be done. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe Theory

You wrote on the discussion page for Fringe Theory "I can't see any way to address my concerns..." so you had to revert a major re-write. Obviously there are many points to discuss, and you could see, but do not have time to do so. Just as obvious is the need for other editors to not waste there time making changes to the old version you reverted to. I was also trying to save readers time by improving the first section's utility.

I think the section I re-worked "Identifying Fringe Theories" article appears old-school and opinionated, and largely irrelevant. I would like to discuss my thoughts with you on it. Let us make haste though. Meet me at the discussion page, and lets stop talking about talking, and making promises. (You wrote in the edit summary that you had "detailed your concerns" on the discussion page. Do you promise to actually say something soon?)CpiralCpiral 19:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh ? My edit comment said "I have detailed my concerns on the talk page" i.e. on the guidelines's talk page here. I listed my concerns there immediatley after my edit to the guideline page - and you have seen my comments there and responded to them. So let's continue the discussion over there. By the way, you might want to tone down your rhetoric - you are coming across as rather combative, which is not a good way to start a productive discussion. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe Theory Debate

Please refrain from making personal remarks on the discussion page. You might want to review the wikietiquette section you are so close to violating, in my studied and careful opinion.

I appreciate your comments very much, and really want to discuss with you. If the writing is confusing, please know that I will not take a specific complaint personally. Do you realize the impossibility of absorbing or digesting a general negative? In fact, I will most likely agree with you. Now be bolder in your assertions!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpiral (talk • contribs)

Telling you that your ideas are unclear and poorly expressed is not a pesonal remark or a violation of wikiquette. Please keep off my talk page - you are no longer welcome here. Gandalf61 (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ObjectFX

First, my sincere apologies if I am innocently and unknowingly violating the established Wikipedia protocol for the talk feature. I'm a newbie, but have long wished to be a contributor. So this is my first effort. My thoughts regarding your comments are imbedded below:

• Style - reads too much like a corporate brochure. For example, "Record of Innovation" is a brochure heading, and the list contains several unsubstantiated claims of "first x".

{these innovations are the very things that make this member of the Open Geospatial Consortium notable and worthy of an entry in Wikipedia. Another member would be ESRI aka Environmental Systems Research Institute, who is already listed in Wikepedia. I'm having a hard time understanding the difference.}

• Contents - should say more about what the company actually does. What is "ObjectFX technology" ? Did the company develop this technology, or does it only market it ? Also, there is a possible copyright violation, as parts of the content seem to be copied from the ObjectFX web site.

{I will rephrase to provide better description. btw, the text has not been copied from the ObjectFX website, so there is no copyright violation. Can the article reference the website? The ESRI entry definitely does.}

• Notability - needs to have more independent sources to establish notability. Advertorials, opion pieces and press releases are good sources for facts, but do not establish notability.

{I don't see much difference between the ESRI entry and the ObjectFX text}

Thank you very much for your help. Kcroth4809 (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your comments down here to the end of my talk page because Wikipedia convention is that new talk page sections go at the bottom of the page, not at the top. Do you mind if I copy your comments back to Wikipedia:Requests for feedback ? That way we can keep the discussion thread in one place, and you can get feedback from other editors. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Gandalf61. I'll remember to put things at the bottom. No prob with copying to Wikipedia:Requests for feedback. I am very appreciative of all the help. Do you have any thoughts on my previous round of comments? Kcroth4809 (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - I have copied your comments to Wikipedia:Requests for feedback#ObjectFX. I don't have any further thoughts, but you may get more feedback from others there. Gandalf61 (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nonlinear function

Hi. You have removed definition of nonlinear function, but note that this is widely used. [1][2]

In wikipedia there is no definition of it. Also there are many , different definitions. So I do not agree with you. (:-))

Regards. --Adam majewski (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Optimal Fit of a Non-linear Function
2. Nonlinear function approximation: Computing smooth solutions with an adaptive greedy algorithm

Nonlinear simply means "not linear". It is not restricted to polynomial functions, which is what your edit implied. Indeed, the first reference you give (the MATLAB one) uses an exponential function as its nonlinear function. I can only see the abstract of the second reference you gave, and that does not say exactly what types of nonlinear functions it is considering. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is different definition from George Mason University. --Adam majewski (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that definition is simply wrong - or, at best, it is too restrictive. Here is a syllabus that uses exponential growth and decay as examples of nonlinear functions; here is a list of nonlinear functions that includes exponetial, logarithm and logistic functions. Gandalf61 (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But still there is no explanations what is nonlinear function in wikipedia. --Adam majewski (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cpiral

You have banned User:Cpiral from your talkpage. However, he or she appears to continue to make baseless accusations against you at User talk:Cpiral (sockpuppetry, etc). I encourage you to take the necessary steps. 71.182.220.179 (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have read Cpiral's baseless accusations and have taken appropriate action. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been patient with my earlier stance. I have learned something by your insistence and patience. Thank you. CpiralCpiral 02:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC) has extended a olive branch of peace.[reply]

---

Aaron Fish (producer) edits

Quick note of thanks for streamlining the article I posted on producer Aaron Fish. All the best Gandalf61. Maninga (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formal Grammars

Thanks for helping me clean up the intro. Obviously, a lot more needs to be done but I'm glad someone else is helping out. Lokentaren (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automorphic numbers

You are right that maybe it is wrong place to publish this program, but it really works in linear time for each n-th number - just check it. I wrote it long time ago, but it was just couriousity for me. Are automorphic numbers useful for something ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marekmosiewicz (talk • contribs) 10:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is definitely not the right place to publicise programs that you have written yourself - see our no original research policy. As far as I know, automorphic numbers have no practical applications. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help to justify notability - Robin French

Hello Gandalf61, thanks for the help in editing the biography Robin French There still remains the tag of notability which I hope that someone (perhaps you) will remove. I have indeed added a lot more information now. This writer is notable because: (A) Any biography - 1. The person has received a notable award or honor. (B) Creative professionals - 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers. (C) Creative professionals - 3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. (A) Won the Royal Court Young Writers Programme in 2005, awarded as a "young star in the ascendant" in 2005 by the Guardian, twice awarded the title of Hotshot by Broadcast Magazine (in 2006 & 2008) (Broadcast magazine is the major trade publication of the UK television industry). (B and C) The writer's work is widely cited in authorised sources (periodical articles and reviews) - The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, Performing Arts Journal, NME, Broadcast (magazine). I have not added citations for the TV reviews as i'm not sure if necesary - please let me know if so.

Also, I am suprised that notability is questioned as almost all of the writer's colleagues have wiki pages (most with less detail, fewer citations and, in some cases, with fewer achievements).

The writer is actually refered to on 6 other wikipedia pages for his achievements.

I am concerned that this is a living biography and therefore am keen to have this issue resolved. Many thanks for your help, Felicity Waters (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC) .[reply]

If you believe that you have established the subject's notability with references to independent reliable sources then you can remove the {{notability}} tag yourself - you don't need someone else to do that for you. You could add a note explaining you reasoning to the article's talk page, for future reference. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felicity Waters (talk • contribs) 12:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Complete icosahedron

Not a problem. Keep up the good work!--Edge3 (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fractions with prime denominators

I agree with your removal that has been remarked by you as below:

rv (a) this argument is already given above and (b) it does not show that period is *a factor* of p-1)

Arthur Rubin deleted the statement that group theory has anything to do with it. I had overdone it when I acutally wanted to show Arthur Rubin that it is related. Perhaps I show Arthur Rubin and paste to his talk page. Thank you anyway. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 09:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Pitbulls

Gandalf,

I noticed that you removed some of my external links on the Bristol Pitbulls page, and changed them to references at the bottom.

Can you let me know what it is you want me to do to ensure this page goes live, hassle free?

I was surprised that the Bristol Evening Post was not considered a worthy enough source of information?

I have no problem removing the match report links, as they are seconded in the fixtures grid at the bottom anyway.

And I can also understand the personal information, as it could be construed as opinion.

But I would really appreciate some assistance in simple terms of what is required for this to be a valid page.

Many thanks!

Jimmy VillaJimmy Villa (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bristol Pitbulls page is already "live". However, it may face deletion unless it shows that the team has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I am not sure whether match reports are sufficient to establish notability - you could check at the notability noticeboard or ask for help at WikiProject Ice Hockey. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gandalf,

I have indeed posted a query on the WikiProject Ice Hockey page, thanks for the guidance. However, I find it a bit sad that a new, up and coming team cannot get a reference page created, as there is not enough 'significant coverage in independent reliable sources'. At such an early stage in the project, how is status supposed to be achieved?!?

I believe it is sad that someone who is willing to nurture and attend to a new efficient professional page (me by the way!!) is potentially being thwarted because the team hasnt had enough 'coverage'.

I've seen some under-attended pages on here, poorly presented, but they must be OK, because their subject matter has been around for some time?! Surely this is some form of ageism?!

I sincerely hope the page is allowed to stay, and I will do what is in my power to make it 'wikipedia' acceptable, but I do wonder why my page deserves to be deleted any more than any other page.

I'm sure you will chuckle to yourself, having heard these sentiments frequently! I do thank you for your assistance, and i'll be even more greatful if my page is removed from the preverbial chopping block!!

JimmyJimmy Villa (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the page "deserves to be deleted", and it is not on any sort of "chopping block". I simply pointed out that at the moment it does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline, and, if this is not fixed, there is a posssibility that it may be nominated for deletion by some other editor at some future time. Once you have added sources to establish notability then you can remove the {{notability}} tag from the page. The folks at WikiProject Ice Hockey are the best people to help you, and you should listen to their advice. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GANDALF Thank you. I am liasing with one of their guys now, and i'm sure one way or the other, he will help me get the page how it SHOULD look.

Thank you for your assistance though. I hope that should I need a reviewer after any re-vamp, that you will be on hand to cast your eye over the article!!  ;-)

All the best, and keep up the good work

Jimmy

Jimmy Villa (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please just humour me a bit further

I replied at the reference desk. If your rope stays exactly above the point in the coil where it instantaneously is unwinding then the whole rope is travelling around in a circle of radius r (which cancels) and at a velocity v. Therefore there is λv^2y/2 in vertical kinetic energy and λv^2y/2 in horizontal kinetic energy.

The alternative way to see this geometrically is to lay the end of the rope flat along the ground and pick it up at v m/s but this time you have to run sideways at v m/s just to stay above the join. Your upwards force is still F dt = dp = λv dy, so F dy = Fv dt = λv^2 dy, and so work done on rope = λv^2y, but now the k.e. of rope is λv^2y.

A flexible chain cannot dissipate energy by deformation but for a coiled rope the energy must appear as a rapid rotation. In any case a straight chain down to a point is unphysical. But the existence of horizontal velocity does invalidate the energy version I agree.--BozMo talk 14:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC) --BozMo talk 14:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway to recap when this has got to. Flexible chains are energy conserving so there is no internal loss to plastic deformation and the like. However in this case some half of the energy has to turn into horizontal kinetic energy as the initial movement of the rope has to be not only v upwards but also v along the rope so the rope can continue unwinding. The upward force is F dt = dp = λv dy, so F dy = Fv dt = λv^2 dy, and so work done on rope = λv^2y, and the k.e. of rope is λv^2y . There is no other force needed parallel to displacement. Further up in the air this additional horizontal energy (and angular momentum) presumably disipates. I happily concede I was wrong about which equation gave the right answer. However it is quite clear that everyone else was wrong about what happened to the energy. --BozMo talk 15:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just seen your comment on the reference desk which edit conflicted with mine. I think you need to think a little more and draw a picture of the point of unravelling. Without applying any external horizontal force the system needs any infinitesmal element which has just unwound to be travelling sideways at v following the join point otherwise the rope snaps. --BozMo talk 15:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Penrose tiling

Hi there. I was just cruising through some of the older articles awaiting review at GAN, including Penrose tiling. I don't feel competent to do the review, and am too busy right now anyway, but thought I'd make a couple of comments:

• The article is very sparsely referenced. There are many paragraphs without a citation, and instructions / equations also without a source, such as "Drawing the Penrose tiling P3"
• The language and notation in some areas, such as (again) "Drawing the Penrose tiling P3", is completely incomprehensible to a lay reader. No explanation of an L-system, then a list of things called variables, constants, then something called a "start" followed by a bunch of numbers and notation etc. This reads like something from a technical manual or advanced textbook, not an encyclopedia.

If these issues could be addressed, I imagine the article would be much closer to GA status. Hope this feedback is a help rather than a hinderance; regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reviewing my new article TextBEAST clipboard + image + capture. I added a couple external references in an attempt to establish notability. Please take a look when you have a chance. Thanks! VB123 (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any Improvement?

Thank you for your helpful suggestions.

I have tried to improve the layout 3 ways: more care with the use of uppercase, inclusion of external links and inclusion of references.

I would appreciate any further suggestions you have.

Thanking you again

The Polyphonics (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for nominating harry maclean for deletion=

his obvious spam only SPA account should be deleted as well as the article should be deleted... I had pretty much given up after speedy and prod was declined but you are doing the right thing.. excellent work wether they can see that or not. I salute you..lol -Tracer9999 (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(so-called ;- ) Proto-computer data-bank system

You are a patient and sensible tutor, Gandalf. Your explanation of the defining characteristics of the computer is lucid and convincing. This prevents me from using the inappropriate language I'd attempted in my draft – though am after all not so foolish as to fob it off without having run it past the good folks at WP:RD/L. Glad I did, gladder still to have your wise words. -- Thanks! Deborahjay (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

For assuming you were a school kid or similar. You seem to know what you are talking about with statics anyway [1] --BozMo talk 18:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Trigintaduonion

An article that you have been involved in editing, Trigintaduonion, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trigintaduonion. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. RDBury (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quaternion Article

Hi - I just wanted to say thanks for the constructive criticism and attention on the quaternion article. It's much appreciated as it makes me a better contributor to wikipedia. I'll see you around :) Spiral5800 (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]