|
User talk:Oleg Alexandrov/Archive4Let me welcome myselfThe standard Wikipedia welcome, that is, the text fragment {{welcome}}, generates the text below, which has many useful links for a newcomer.
Hello, Oleg Alexandrov/Archive4, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place Loose Cannon "Bot"I am afraid your bot confused the article on longitude, more than improving it (there are a few useful additions of links). Linking "decimal" fraction is kind of overly paternalistic, I'd judge, in that the meaning is rather obvious, but if it must be done, is there not a way to link down the "decimal" page to the entry point "Decimal fractions" itself? The item " positive " is likely to lead readers down the garden path when the concepts of positive and negative hardly need embellishment. The same holds when linking in "surface" - anybody in her/his right mind knows what the Earth's surface refers to, and the link is distracting. This one: "for which the equatorial radius is larger than the polar radius" is a mess, because the entry for "radius" deals almost entirely with circularly or spherically symmetric objects, while the concept is extended for ellipsoids in the obvious way to "polar radius" (radius of the inscribed sphere, for an oblate ellipsoid) and "equatorial radius" for that of the circumscribed sphere (for the oblate case). The extension is not used for ellipses because, absent an axis of rotational symmetry, there is no obvious "pole" or "equator." The "radius" article is almost entirely for 2-dimensional objects, the the one extension given does not in any way fit the case at hand. The other changes are useful - thanks, "Bot." Pdn 5 July 2005 04:57 (UTC)
Are you going to revert the links to positive, radius, surface, and decimal fraction? Sorry to be so negative, and I know you are just trying to be helpful, but too many links put us in chains. Pdn 6 July 2005 09:42 (UTC)
Thanks for quick fix. By the way, some imbecile edited Vernal equinox so as to say the Sun rises and sets at the North or South poles (instead of East and West) at the Vernal equinox so I fixed that. Hard to be timely. I will treat you to a Wikitherapist for nagging if you treat me to one for suffering about sunrise at the North Pole. Pdn 7 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)
edit summary:-P - Omegatron July 6, 2005 04:03 (UTC) mathbot rockshi oleg Just wanted you to know that mathbot rocks. Well, I don't know about the various complaints concerning automatic linking, but in terms of fixing up my crummy spelling (even though I try really hard to get it right), it is superb. Great work. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 6 July 2005 17:54 (UTC)
Matrix Categories:Dear Oleg Alexandrov: Why the category of Householder transformation is Matrices and QR decomposition is Matrix_theory? Are they correct? Are there really differences between Matrices and Matrix theory? Because I am not very interested about that, you don't need to answer me detailly. I don't want to waste your time. Just let me know that you have done and I will check them to know. Thank you
There is an organizational mess here because QR decomposition leads one to Householder_reflection which is stated to be the same as Householder transformation. I never use this stuff except if I need it (it is in Numerical Recipes and other libraries) so someone needs to get a math expert to fix up the chain of links. An expert can do it in 10 minutes and it would take be an hour and not be as good a fix. There is an expert Michael Hardy who edits a lot of math stuff (but don't say I sent you if you do not mind, please).Pdn 7 July 2005 04:15 (UTC) Thank you I will post the same article to his talk without your name, if you don't mind.--Jacob grace 7 July 2005 06:03 (UTC) --- Householder's reflections, Givens Rotations, and any number of other Orthogonalization methods can be used to do a QR decomposition (also called a QR factorization). A Householder matrix is one that implements a Householder reflection. A Givens matrix is one that implements a Givens rotation. In wikipedia Givens Rotation is in: Numerical linear algebra. Householder reflection is in: Geometry | Linear algebra | Matrices This seems a bit inconsistant to me. Those two, at least, should be in the same categories (The union of the two lists in my opinion).
Cholesky decomposition is also used (Along with "Normal Equations") for many of the same problems, but is is listed as in: Numerical linear algebra only... I would think Cholesky should be in Matrix theory also if QR is. (More personal opinion).
thanksHi Oleg, thanks for cleaning up after me. I will learn to do the categorization someday and put you out of business ;) Seriously I really appreciate your hard work and got a good laugh from your edit summaries.--MarSch 7 July 2005 11:26 (UTC) Periods after abbreviationsThis is in reaction to this edit. There is a rule in British English (with not everybody obeys, I hasten to add) that no point should be used after abbreviations in which the last letter of the abbreviation is the last letter of the word being abbreviated. So, we say "Dr X" and "Prof. Y'. Therefore, at least some people insist that it should be "pbk" and not "pbk." . For the rest, great work, I learnt that "seldomly" is not correct (I had to look that one up, but the OED tags it as obsolete) and that "collinear" is with two l's. Jitse Niesen (talk) 7 July 2005 12:31 (UTC)
You do know that a whole book was written on punctuation one or two years ago, which became a bestseller? I see that we even have an article about it: Eats, Shoots and Leaves. Apparently, it crossed the Atlantic as a missionary to spread the art of proper punctuation, but it won't be easy to educate the barbarians over there. I heard you still eat people at your side? ;) -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 7 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)
Cauchy-Schwarz InequalityOleg, may be I misuderstood you. This proof uses, for example the fact that <y,x> = <x,y>* (complex conjugate) and thus it assumes that <x,y> is complex. Obviously it is true for the real case. --Eliosh.
Archaic spellings in quotesSince you seem to be running a spellbot, I guess I should warn you that I'm creating a set of physics history pages which will have some archaic spellings. In order to keep your bot off them, I'm tagging them with either a blockquote class="archaic" or a span class="archaic". If there is a more accurate description language in general use on Wikipedia I would like to know. Also, in case you plan to extend your bot to correct archaic spellings (as opposed to translating them into modern English) would you prefer the class tag to also give the century? In that case one can have class="archaic19" etc. Bambaiah 13:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Lerch transcendantYes, you are right that this is a misspelling. However, it will not lead to further problems. A common use for redirects is to flag misspellings such as this and direct users to the correct article. In this case, the redirect is perfectly legitimate. Denni☯ 02:28, 2005 July 15 (UTC) "Wellordered" et alHi Oleg, Please do not insert a hyphen in "wellordered", "wellfounded", etc. These are accepted modern spellings, and preferable in that they make it clear that a wellordering is a technical notion, that it is not being adjudged "better" than an ordering that's not a wellordering. See e.g. Moschovakis (1980). --Trovatore 19:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Rendering problem at absolute value?Hi Oleg. I've just finished a major revision of the absolute value article, and Trovatore reports experiencing a rendering problem with my new version. (see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#absolute value article rewrite, RFC and Talk:Absolute value). I can't try to debug it, since it renders for me (Safari, Firefox, IE on MacOS X.) Could you take a look? Thanks. Paul August ☎ 21:42, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
2005 (UTC)
Magic mirroring of discussion pagesOleg, I assume that you have occasional contact with the authors of the mediawiki software? Could you perchance bring up a feature request that certain parts of certain talk pages be automatically mirrored between multiple locations? I agree that having the same conversation in multiple places results in a disjointed, schizophrenic thread. At the same time, I like to reply on other people's talk pages because I know it will light up their "You have new messages" bell. Yes, there are ways to manually accomplish the same thing; and so in the future I shall take care. linas 17:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
You are of course right about my string being unbreakable; I misunderstood your point. Peace and friendship! Oleg Alexandrov 03:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Serious mistake in article about the Borel algebra(moved to talk:Borel algebra) I added another section for "verse-by-verse Biblical analysis should be transwikied to a WikiBible instead of left on Wikipedia with the possible exception of "notable" verses" as something that could take votes *in addition* to votes for other section, so if you support that idea go check it out. Thanks! — Phil Welch 22:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
SimonP (the creator of the 100 or so gospel verse articles) has tried to claim that the votes for the "only notable verses" section would include most of the 30,000 verses of the bible because he sees them as notable. To avoid such a POV twisting of the votes, I have added a new section - [1] - for voting on whether the number of notable verses is more like 30,000, or more like 30. Would you care to vote there as well? ~~~~ 00:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC) Budu.I will write summaries. Thank you. --VKokielov 20:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC) Please could you instruct your bot to move this category to Category:Mathematical lists? The word Math (as opposed to Maths) is quite jarring for many Brits, and is somewhat too informal for a category title anyway, I feel. Thanks! Lupin 22:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Thank youThank you. I'm going to be a little more careful. (Believe me, this isn't the first time. And I try to do it in good faith, which makes it all the more painful when I get nailed on it. I've been called condescending and pushed aside for it. I should have known, but it's been a long time since I wrote anything for the public. ;) ) If you want me to censor myself, just tell me where; otherwise, I'll listen to whatever you tell me. --VKokielov 23:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC) Manifold/rewriteHi, Oleg. You left a comment on Talk:manifold/rewrite after a freeze. I think the point of the freeze was to avoid commenting for a week. Hard to resist, isn't it? But if you comment then others (like me) want to comment, and so on.
While I'm here, a reply about the mathbot issue from my talk page. I didn't know enough to track down the origin of the bot, or I would happily have discussed the problem with you personally. I was grumbling at a mindless, inanimate object, like a pothole in the road that jolts your car. Somewhere there's a fellow who is responsible for maintaining that stretch of road, but we don't know who he is so we swear at the pothole as the only outlet for our discomfort and frustration. So far as I know, the pothole doesn't mind. Computers and automobiles are different; they do take it personally, so we have to talk to them in friendly, soothing tones lest they turn on us. I'm sure of it! ;-) KSmrq 11:19, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
planetmath templateOleg, could you take a look at the last comment on my talk page? There's a subtle problem with the planetmath template that I'm wondering if one of your bots might fix. Oh, I guess I should alert CryptoDerk as well. linas 00:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
which yields for me
The second way to write it is
which yields for me
1000000000000000000(moved to User talk:Rich Farmbrough) Point of inflexionThe reason I removed the redirect is because non-stationary points of inflexion exist (which shouldn't redirect to stationary point). I am a Wikipedia newb (:(), but I did put stationary point into the See also section. If you want, I'll revert the page, put reference notes to stationary point in the article and elaborate on the Talk page. I was going to use inflection as the redirect link (I asked the help desk for advice, Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archive_24#Inflexion_or_inflection.3F but got no feedback, so I went ahead with things) and put (or inflection) all over the article, but again, I didn't know. I don't know if I've caused any disruption or not (...) but I hope not. -x42bn6 08:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
How does this sound? Oleg Alexandrov 15:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Spelling of repetendOn the page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oleg_Alexandrov/Reported_bugs_so_far, there is a discussion of 'repitend' vs. 'period', but no mention that the first word is misspelled. English dictionaries (including OED, Merriam-Webster, etc.) spell it 'repetend', with no 'i'. It's one of a set of mathematical terms (augend, addent, minuend, subtrahend, etc.) that are formed from Latin gerundives, so the spelling of the Latin word should govern. Gwil 20:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
RandomnessI added more information to Category:Chaos Chambers and I think you'll find it quite relevant to randomness. (unsigned post by User:Espantajo).
SectstubsI notice your comment on the sectsub in Pi. I agree with the removal, but not your reasoning. I've removed sections from articles to make main articles, and left {sectsctub}, because my replacement was only a sentence. Septentrionalis 01:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
exchaning two articlesHi, I want to exchange Random Access Machine (currently the article) and Random access machine (currently a redirect). Do you know how I should do this? --R.Koot 02:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
AmusementYou might find this amusing.--CSTAR 18:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
New Welcome MessageI've made a note for you at Template:Welcome/Proposed version 1. Superm401 | Talk 04:31, August 7, 2005 (UTC) Relative complementHi Oleg, many prefer the notation A\B to A-B because the latter is ambiguous in a context where subtraction of individual elements of A and B is defined. A-B can mean {a-b|a∈A & b∈B}. Trovatore --15:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't justify the move-- although I did do a google search before the move and found that "volumetric flow rate" gets 52,400 hits and "rate of fluid flow" gets 963 hits. Any case, I didn't know there were other redirects-- whereas I did now find a bunch of 'em with a bit of trickery (what I did is misspell rate of fluid flow-- the wikipedia search then returns things that are close). Do you happen to know a better way to find redirects to a given page? Thanx. Nephron 01:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I've seen you have some issues with Louis Epstein before, so I thought I'd invite you to comment on the RfC I've set up. He's crossed the line into edit warring over the em-dash thing. — Phil Welch 01:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC) Edit summaryThanks for your note. I will remember to fill in the summary field. Deryck C. 09:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC) French CurveI would like to notice that before you created the French Curve article, we already had the French curve article. So, I would suggest that in the future you do not use capitals in article titles except for the first letter and other cases requred by grammar (like names, which are obviously capital). Thank you for your addition. Oleg Alexandrov 22:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC) If you look, you will find that I did not write the article French Curve, I merely removed the reference to its use in Computer drafting, which was innacurate. If you feel it needs additional editing, feel free to do so. --Outlander 11:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Jitse's RfAJise has finally relented: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jitse Niesen ;-) Paul August ☎ 16:43, August 12, 2005 (UTC) Ricci decompositionHi, Oleg, we're having an edit conflict because we're both modifying that article. I am temporarily reverting to incorporate major changes and will add your changes by hand.---CH (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Re: Mathbot's pageHi. Thank you for the quick reversion of my blanking of User:Mathbot/Page1. This shows that vandalism reversion is working well, and that is a good news. But just for the record, I was not vandalizing that page. Rather, it was my bot's page which I used for previewing some work I do on the list of mathematicians, and when I did not need that scratch page anymore I made the page blank. Next time I will pay attention and put an edit summary. Thanks again for the quick response. Oleg Alexandrov 21:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Can you look at this recent edit for 198I created the article so I'm biased but I don't agree with the last edit by Jitse Niesen. I'd like your opinion.
Mathbot recent articles listI just noticed that mathbot seems to have missed Generalized Appell polynomials which I just created yesterday. In particular, this means its not showing up in the WP math project 'recent activity' page. Am I just impatient, or did it actually not see this? linas 23:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Section linking
The worst that can happen corresponds to what you suggest to do in the first place: the link becomes a link to the (top of the) article. It is unfortunate that there is no system of automatic redirects when sections are renamed, but I do not think that is a reason to avoid section linking altogether.--Patrick 08:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
External LinksOkay, thank you. I now know... --Celestianpower hab 07:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC) Hi Oleg, Well I like my version the more. But the two defintions of poles are equivalent. So I think we should have both. What do you think? I added the stuff about essential singularities in the page about mathematical singularities. (unsigned message by Thorfinn)
Mathbot & Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/OldUm... your stats will screw up my VFD Bot. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Mathbot, removing "ugly frame around indented text"Hi Oleg. I noticed your Mathbot was removing "ugly frame around indented text". While I personally agree that these frames should be removed, Is this the consensus opinion? Anyway in many cases (all the ones I've looked at so far) it should just remove the blockquotes altogether. Paul August ☎ 18:16, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Well, as regards consensus, it never hurts to be careful. I think I have noticed a natural progression of sorts. One starts out being timid, asks for comments, no one much responds, or one is encouraged to be bold, bold actions ensue, and work out well, and one gets more comfortable and more confident and surrounds one's self with a group of like-minded editors, and becomes more and more bold, wielding more and more power and taking more and more unilateral actions until ... the world changes and one ends up inside their very own cautionary tale like poor Ed Poor. (If you haven't yet seen these they make an interesting case for the need for consensus: Ed Poor's RfC, and Ed Poor's RfA). Paul August ☎ 21:37, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Point Plotting/Cartesian coordinate systemIf you undid my merge (and you did, oh well), it's fine. My idea was, "Hey, why start a new article if there's already something out there just like it." If you're up for the extra work, sure, we can keep them seperate. I was just concerned that the effort could be put into something else, and that it's best to gather information in one place. Also, if Point plotting is going to become more oriented towards lower math, perhaps it should focus on the 2D aspect, briefly touching on 3D. However, the cartesian coordinate system would include the whole thing. But, I have no doubt you're a better mathematician than I am, so you lead the way. Meanwhile, happy editing. HereToHelp 03:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Summer of '56Hi Oleg, Thank you for your kind words and helpful editing comments. I spent a wonderful summer in Constanza in 1956, dating a beautiful Romanian girl. Her "te iu besc" still rings in my ears. (unsigned post by Cruise)
Who is a notable mathematician? And where to talk about it?Hi, Oleg, thanks for your comment. I couldn't figure out where to post a request for comment on the issue at hand. What concerns me is that I think that any biography of a mathematician in Wikipedia should link to an article explaining some mathematical achievement, if mathematical prowess is their grounds for notability, or should at least mention something truly notable. Do you understand why I feel this bar is not met in the three articles I am complaining about?
If there is no standard for inclusion of biographical articles, there probably should be, and it seems to me that a very simple and easy to use criterion is this: biographies which do not describe any clearly notable achievement of the subject are not suitable for Wikipedia. Any discussion in VfD would then focus on whether or not whatever the article says constitutes a "notable achievement", so at least there would be some simple ground rule to help focus the discussion. Does this make any sense to you?---CH (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Planet Math - combinatorics pagesI'm looking at the combinatorics pages. Will it break anything if I add (complete) to headings of sections where no work MP->WP is required? I've also removed _NOTOC_ so that I can see at a glance the sections that need work. Clearly anyone can add this back if they like. Rich Farmbrough 21:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
HappyCamper's RFA - Thanks for your support! :-)Hello Oleg! Thanks for your support on my recent RFA! I am very appreciative of your support and confidence in me. I recently became an administrator, and I hope that in the future we will get a chance to collaborate on some activities on Wikipedia together - whether it be writing articles or performing other administrative tasks. Feel free to let me know if you ever need an extra hand! --HappyCamper 02:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
VFD/Old, Perl, & VFD BotI very much would like to write everything in Perl for all my bots, in particular, for VFD Bot. It's just that I haven't found any Perl code that easily gets the data from the Wikipedia and parses the wiki code. What I've found is that there is something, but it requires a lot different modules of perl to install for it to function properly. (I gave up in frustration, and stopped using it.) The Python pywikipedia framework gave me a set of nice features to use, but the Perl implementation I've seen hasn't come even close to the features that the Python implementation has. I would like to very much work with you in writing the code together for VFD Bot, as the stats you place on WP:VFD/Old follows much of the work required to do User:AllyUnion/VFD List. I would very much like to try to keep the maintainance from VFD Bot and have your bot account separated from that work. What do you think? Please reply at my talk page. --AllyUnion (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Complete dialogue is at AllyUnion. Oleg Alexandrov 21:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC) Nice program!I tried out your PM great conversion program ;-) I copied the results with a question on the PM project talk page. Paul August ☎
Hi, couldyou read & comment on notation question at Talk:Sigma-algebra ? linas 13:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC) Sudden deletionI had to rush off on a "resuce mission" in the middle of an edit. Sorry I wan't clearer. Rich Farmbrough 18:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC) Place of the stub on French wikipediaHello, I have seen you have moved the stub on fr:Méthode de la sécante at the bottom of the page. While this modification is minor, I just wanted to tell you that afaik on fr, most stubs are placed on top of the article (my very informal estimation would say that on 100 stubs, 99 are placed on top) Dake.
Thank you for the correction you made...Thank you for the correction you made to my addition of "External links" to the "Sparse Matrix" page. I'm new at wikipedia, and can use a bit of coaching on lots of issues. [And, of course, I'm a bit careless anyway.] Says you, Queen of Wikipedia MathematicsDear Oleg, This subtitle "is the queen ... not a science" is not a play on words. It is an appropriate title to introduce and reflect the content of the section, as well as past discussions, and enages the reader (such as you). To reign over a subject does not require one to be the same. And says who what is not the place? Was it hurting you? best regards, bcameron54
and what I said to Rudy...the queen bit Thank you for warning me against adding my persistance to yours. I hope i am doing this properly, and that I will not be blocked for insolence. I entered the 'queen of sciences' stuff originally, although it has evolved a bit since. Its ancient origins as a phrase, if it is to be attributed only to those who used it recently, are as relevant as quotes by mathematicians who fulfil Lederman's irrelevant POV, which remains. The fact that maths now reign over sciences, rather than religion over sciences is reflected in the appropriation of the phrase from its ancient origin. If the link to St Thomas Aquinas is out-of-date, well, it is nearly 1,000 years, what do you expect? bcameron54
Principled disputesI consider removing the damage (such as alphabetization,the abandonment of a clear cutoff age,and insertion of dubious and inconsistently-admitted cases) that others have done to the National longevity recordholders article to be very important.I see no reason to surrender to popular misconception and I welcome any opportunity to convince those who refuse to accept my fork that it is they who should abandon their efforts.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 20:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
as in me, myself and Irene??Dear Oleg After your lecture about correct spelling and proper grammar on your talk page, *me* am amazed at your reversion of the subjective to the objective form of the first person singular, in a compound subject. I will not revert your error, to avoid being blocked after a trivial reversion battle. As an experienced editor, please learn to use your role well in form, and then apply the same to editing of content. Sheesh.... Bcameron54 03:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Bcameron54 03:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion flag dayWikipedia:Votes for deletion has been moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Please update your bot code accordingly to the change. --AllyUnion (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC) Matrix additionI find the edits of User:Cruise to matrix addition rather odd. I never saw the operation defined under matrix addition#addition of matrices and I'd say that the notation A (+) B for the usual matrix addition is extremely rare. However, I noticed that you thanked Cruise on his talk page. Have you seen his matrix addition elsewhere? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
PS: I answered your question at User talk:Jitse Niesen#List of mathematical topics (A-C). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
(+) notation for matrix additionHi Oleg,
Math notation is far from standard with variations largely dependent on the context. Textbooks which do not describe matrix addition but only addition of matrix elements, do not have the need to discriminate between + and (+). However, as we draw distinction between the addition of matrix elements and the addition of matrices, the operands cannot be identical. Best Wishes, David Cruise 19:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I see your and Jitse's point. Maybe, to preserve continuity, would be better to keep the parentheses out. Thank you for your input. local search editHi Oleg - Yes, people are aware of the search engines, but "local search" is a relatively new paradigm, and not all search engines have clear navigation to their local search experimental sections. Most people do not know the direct links to these local search sites, and therefor it is useful to include them. The term "local search" is now much more commonly and popularly used to describe the specialized type of search methodology, and the marketing of that service, so I believe the links would be useful to people in the context of this encyclopedia article. Thanx for your consideration! Mathbot spelling errorin Division by zero, MathBot corrected diagramatic to diagram. It should have been diagrammatic. It is perhaps a little overeager, as I would think that chopping 4 letters off the end is probably not a spelling correction, but changing the word. Perhaps it should only correct when it is sure not only the word is spelt wrong, but what it is correcting it to is right? Mrjeff 19:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Red / DeadThanks for articles/mathematics -- made my day. 8-) Andrew Kepert 07:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC) Article explaining a mathematics misconceptionshouldn't greatest common denominator redirect to infinity? --R.Koot 10:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Re: Math-stubHi. Sorry for using the wrong stub. I later figured it out, but first I was trying math-bio-stub and versions with other strange symbols. Karol 07:11, September 4, 2005 (UTC) African Institute [Ff]or Mathematical SciencesIt seems your bot is confused by the articles African Institute For Mathematical Sciences and African Institute for Mathematical Sciences (the titles differ in the capitalization of for): it can't decide which to include; on the 1st, it replaced the later by the former, it went back on the 3rd, and back again on the 4th, while the articles themselves haven't changed. Perhaps worth a look; perhaps not important enough? By the way, you're close to pushing the number of articles above 10,000; then we'll be the biggest WikiProject behind WikiProject:Minor characters in the second Harry Potter book that did not appear in the second movie. ;) -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I have filed a request for arbitration. You are invited to comment. Susvolans ⇔ 17:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC) PMEX Proofs?
canadian mathematiciansHello Oleg. I agree 200% with you, and would now like to do away with the math professor cat as well as all professor cats. i created it to form a link between Category:Canadian professors and Category:Canadian academics, but i ve since changed my mind about the matter. i think that being a prof (in itself) is NOT encyclopedically noteworthy and therefore that there should be no Category:Professors cat. anyone who happens to be a prof and encyclopedically noteworthy because of their research contributions should be catted as an academic, according to their field, shouldn t they. i would like to see Category:Professors done away with. i m considering doing away with all the canadian prof sub-cats, but it ll take a bit of work and there are other cat work (my little wiki activity now) i m working on. -Mayumashu 02:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi Oleg, Please note my reply regarding the categories at the talk page. APH 07:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC) helloI'm a new wikipedian, I thought that it would be useful to paste some links from german translation. Didn't you notice that those two links are in german version of the page? The article would be much longer if someone who knows german would translate what is written in the german version. And yes, I appreciate that you prefer pure information than links. This is what I look for, when I search something in the wikipedia to learn about. The problem is, that wikipedia is better than google, when looking for science-related things. That's why I've added them. I'll not add it again, if you think that people shuould not know about them... well it's not my problem anymore - I have no time for that. Janek Kozicki
LemmaThank you for your kind invitation to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. I replied there. Algae 06:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC) Numerical analysis: softwareHi Oleg, I moved the whole list of software to a new page List of numerical analysis software. After observing your change to my addition of PDL (I think your point for which was very reasonable) I thought this change would be for the best of the original article, and for the software section as well. I discussed the change in the talk page. Hope you would agree with me. Thanks. Greenleaf 08:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC) |
