I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay. Before getting too in-depth, you may want to read about the Five pillars of Wikipedia and simplified ruleset. If you need help on how to title new articles check out the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and the FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my user talk page or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will be by to help you shortly.
Additional tips
Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!
If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Five will get you the datestamp only.
If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
If you're still entirely confused, or would like to get a better grasp of your wikipedia skills, and you have an IRC client (or don't mind getting one), check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.
If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.
Thanks for adding an article on Lehmer's GCD algorithm. Your reference for one result in that article was TAOCP "volume 4, section 5.3" — I wasn't aware that volume 4 had been published yet! (And Knuth's Web site agrees with me.) Is that result mentioned in one of the publicly available "fascicles" for Volume 4 [1], or was that a typo for "Volume 3" or something similar, or do you have access to drafts of TAOCP that aren't publicly available yet? Just curious. --Quuxplusone21:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
l33t draftz? I wish. To be honest, I dragged it from some other source mentioning the result. Yeah, lazy me. Well, the recent earthquake around Taiwan has also intruded on a couple of fiber-optic lines so I'm out of action for a while. No online research for three weeks. Hopefully other Random Wiki Joe will help us fix the reference, if it's indeed broken. Jafet15:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit to Matrix encryption (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot13:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's very vague and subjective opinion. "Perhaps" it is "elementary" — whatever "elementary" means (it may have one of several well-defined mathematical meanings depending on context, none of which seem to apply here) — or perhaps not. Exactly how many decimal places is "almost three"? Two, three, two-and-a-half? How much is two-and-a-half digits anyway? How do you measure "quick"? What exactly would qualify as a competing "other method"? An algorithm? A mental mnemonic? A formal derivation? Source it or purge it. ~ JafetSpeaker of many words17:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"None of which seem to apply here" makes no sense. It is quite conventional to say that a method requiring no knowledge of mathematics beyond first-year calculus is "elementary". Two-and-a-half digits would mean within 10 −2.5 = about 0.00316. Being precise about measuring "quickness" is not easy, but this argument is so short that it's hard to imagine anyone thinking it's not "quick". Obviously a mental mnemonic would not qualify; that's absurd. "Source it or purge it" has somewhat limited applicability to things the reader can see for himself. If I call two lines of iambic tetrameter "a short poem", will there be controversy about whether it qualifies as "short", requiring one to cite authoritative literature calling it "short"? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The entire sentence that is being contested here, is superflous. It impresses no point that is not an editor's personal opinion or simply unsubstantiated original claims. What is the purpose of that sentence at that point in the article? It does not state a verifiable fact, nor discuss such a fact. I do not see how the inclusion of that sentence improves the quality of the article, by Wikipedia standards.
Be careful handling that straw-man; it looks pretty fragile to me. A "short poem" has, depending on context, some well-defined meaning. Compared to Requiem, a two line poem may be the limit of "short"; if the article compared to the Iliad, on the other hand, "short" may span pages. (If there is no discernible context so that "short poem" is meaningless, the same argument applies; clarify it, possibly with attribution to a source, or remove it.) This sentence however has no definite meaning that will stand out to the average mathematician or layperson, for the reasons I described, and which you seem to be absurdly and obviously trying to dismiss with a brisk, repetitive flick of one's palm.
Again, you have not defined "quick". It takes a whole article-full of exposition for a less-inclined reader to arrive at the result, while for a smart mathematician, shouldn't the correct word be "immediate"? "Elementary", again, can mean many, many, many, many meanings in this context, none (not many, but none) of which are immediately and unambiguously apparent. ~ JafetSpeaker of many words19:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
YOu just placed a remark on the David Cook article. I am unsure as to what incomplete statement you are talking about. Can you please clarify? Thank you Canyouhearmenow11:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually placed the remark on its talk page. Anyway, following the link given, which points to the current version of the article, should illustrate what I mean. To restate the problem, there is a double quote standing all by itself at the end of the second paragraph, which obviously is a mistake of some kind. ~ Jafet • business • pleasure • voicemail11:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you speaking of the part that talks about the initials in his name? I am usure as to where this double quote is? I guess its too early for me to see it? Canyouhearmenow11:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cook's lyrics often take a look at the church and the problems that they face when it comes to handing down judgment upon common people with everyday problems."
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
