Я не понял, почему твой робот удалил Боголюбова (я не очень хорошо знаю английский). Боголюбов Н.Н. (1909 – 1992) – русский и украинский математик и физик-теоретик, академик АН УССР, РАН. Его сын, Боголюбов Н.Н. (род. 1940) – русский математик, член-корреспондент РАН.--Ahonc14:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Moi robot uvidel chto one has "Bololiubov, Nicolai Nicolaevich" dva raza, i po etomu dumal odno i toje litso. Mi mojem pogovoriti ob ismeminii v bote. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To iesti, chtoby my bot ne udalil matematik, nujno chtoby ih staty byli razlichnye, a takje ih imena byli razlichnyie. Eto chtoby ne dopuscati slishkom mnogo dublikatov. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
List of mathematicians
Для Безиковича, Гельфанда и Фоменко написана страна Россия/Украина, но они только родились в УКраине, а жили и работали в России или В.Британии. Поэтому, я думаю, нужно пистаь страну Россия (или СССР/Россия).
Again, I use a stupid bot. You would need to change the category in the corresponding articles, and then my bot will automatically reflect that in the list of mathematicians. That is, if in the article about Gelfand you should remove Category:Ukrainian mathematicians, and then my bot will remove that one from the list of mathematicians.
About using – instead of -, you are right. I will change to – in several days. I am travelling now, and will arrive home say on Wednesday.
Ты можешь писать русские слова латинскими буквами.
Я Сравнил наш список со списком в немецкой, французской википедиях и МакТутором и обнаружил различие в годах для некоторых математиков: Блум. Бланх, Катальди, Кллвиус, Келер, Хаусдорф, д'Агильон. Для д'Агильона в других википедиях пишут: (1566 - 1617), а в нашей - (1546 - 1617). Может это ошибка в статье о нём?.--Ahonc09:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Butu pytatsya pisati po ruskom, no u menia ruskii ocheni plohoi, tak chto izvini.
Esli dumaesi chto daty nepravilynie, nujno izmeniti v statie v dvuh mestah, v nachiale stati i v categorii pod statyoi. Nujno takje izmeniti v List of mathematicians, na vsiakii sluchai esli moi bot ne doidiot tam.
Esli ne hocheshi tam Kelvina, nujno ubrati ego is List of mathematicians, i takje is matematicheskoi categorii. Togda moi bot ne postavit ego obratno.
Ia byl by ocheni rad esli u tebya budut predlojenia v chiom izmeniti moi bot. Toliko skaji, i my popytayemsya dogovoritsa o tom kak luchshe bot doljen rabotati.
Tot &ndash ty mne scazal ya izmenyu segodnya vecherom.
Smotri takje moi otvet na schiot Bogoliubova, v prevydushei sectsii.
Почему некоторые математики, которые имеют титулы отсортированы понастоящим фамилиям (Кондорсет), а другие -- по титулам (Кельвин, дю Шателе, Лавлейс, папа Сильвестр 2-й)?--Ahonc12:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again, because my bot is stupid. There is no way a bot can know that Condorcet is a name, while Kelvin is a title, and Pope Sylvester is a pope. My bot sorts by "Last, First" in [[First Last|Last, First]]. This works for most names, but does not work so well for the special cases you mention. If you want the bot to sort differently, you need to replace the key, meaning the part "Last, First" with something else. About Pope Silvester II, I had decided to leave it as [[Pope Silvester II|Pope Silvester II]] rather than [[Pope Silvester II|Sylverster II, Pope]], but maybe that Pope word needs to be removed altogether, leaving it as [[Pope Silvester II|Sylverster II]]. All up to you. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Для Сильвестра Второго предлагаю написать: Gerbert d'Aurillac, pope Sylvester II.
I think it should be Pope, that is with big P. So I guess you suggest [[Pope Sylvester II|d'Aurillac, Gerbert, Pope Sylvester II]], to be sorted by the bot at letter "A". Fine with me. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Сортировать я думаю нужно на G., так как в те времена, как мне кажеться, фамилий не было, людей называли по месту рождения (Леонардо да Винчи, Леонардо Пизанский, Николай Кузанский, Альберт Брудзевский и др.)--Ahonc13:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you can fool the bot to respect your sorting, fine with me. However, please note that many people will be confused that it is listed by first name rather than last name, even if there were no last names at the time. Up to you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because we have d'Alembert with small d, while D'Allonville is with big d. :) Thanks for noticing that. I fixed my script, it will ignore the leading d' from now on, whether uppercase or lowercase, and then the bot will sort by the name after that. Let us see when it runs today. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your comments
I appreciate your comments.
I have edited, written, redirected, or removed from the list more than 100 articles on the maths6 list on the "needed articles" page, so I think I am doing my share of the gruntwork.
I came to the manifold page because the people working on the manifold page requested help. I hope I've provided that. I'm willing to change my views -- even to the extent of allowing that some people believe that a manifold can have pieces of different dimensions -- I don't think that is standard, but if it is in the book by Abraham et al, then it deserves mention on the page. On the other hand, I think I was (and am) correct in objecting to the assertion that charts can intersect in sets that are not open, and that, for example, non-Hausdorff spaces can be manifolds. Both of these claims were made by people writing the article when I began on the project.
As for the "mathematics" page, when I first began working on it, it said, in effect, that mathematics was numbers and counting and measuring and stuff like that. I hope I've provided a balance by giving the idea of pure mathematics a place -- even if it is second place -- to the idea of mathematics as "computations that are useful".
I spend most of my time writing articles on subjects that have not been covered at all, some of my time trying for NPOV in articles that seem to need a cooler head, and a little of my time on the "big" topics such as "mathematics" and "manifolds". My area of research is 3-manifolds and curves on surfaces, so I do bring some expertise to the subject.
I have nominated as original research but feel that it is important to solicit additional opinions on the matter before an administrator is forced to make a decision. As I mention in the discussion on the [[AfD page - I think the underlying idea - to discuss the impact of classical Newtonian physics has had on other discpiplines and the impact that QM should (but in many cases has not fully) had on those same disciplines - is an interesting one; however, I need help in determining if existing article should be the starting point for such a discussion (or if this topic is covered elsewhere). Thx in adv -Trödel|talk10:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't insert spam on Wikipedia. Thanks.
privet, polu4il soobshenie ot tebia by IP.
ja probyval linki stavit' v strani4ki,
eto legko otsledit' iz admin panel of wiki?
spasib,
Hard to understand what you are saying. I put that note on your anon talk page because you put links in the wrong place. Please stop doing that.
Question: Why isn't 0^infinity indeterminate? Wouldn't it follow the same idea as infinity^0?
Thanks, 65.94.23.180 03:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC) [Identity Correction: I was logged out. MrHumperdink03:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)][reply]
Well, shows up when one takes
with and Now, there will exist such that for one has
(notice that in we assume that we approach 0 fromt the positive side). Then,
by the properties of the exponentials. The moral is that behaves differently than
Ouch. I'm only a college student here. Those n and n_0 confused me a bit. As a matter of fact though, my math teacher explained it simply in that numbers close to zero (lower than 1) converge to 0 when their exponent approaches infinity. Thanks, though! MrHumperdink00:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
hello
hello, you are the gatemaster to all things wikipedia?
i am new to this wideness of the world wide web. please tell me more about this interesting and new features. --anon
I agree with your statements to User talk:Patrick about poorly written articles. For some time it has been my sense that most Patrick edits make an article worse, not better. But I don't have a wisdom pill to give, nor unlimited time, nor unlimited patience. If you think confrontation by a "collective wisdom" will lead to better behavior, I'm willing to add my voice. Otherwise, my practice has been to steer clear and sadly watch entropy increase. With a notable flash point here and there. (*sigh*) I wonder if there are mental health issues, because I notice a certain echolalia, a mimicry, as with use of the word "vandalism" (just one example). That's pure speculation, of course; an entity on the internet could be an intelligent vegetable from outer space, for all we know; CH says "Some say I am a software agent which believes it is human." But you've built up enough credibility and respect on Wikipedia to achieve admin status (congrats!), so perhaps you will have some influence where I could not. I hope so. You have my best wishes for trying. --KSmrqT22:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. To start, I think I went overboard on Patrick's talk page. Patrick is good at Euclidean geometry (symmetry and related areas), he should be just more careful where and how he adds information. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitate to affirm good knowledge based on poor writing. I do wish the boundless enthusiasm could be balanced with better taste. Over the years I've collected some pretty mineral specimens, and so I know how uninspiring a raw gemstone can look: dull, rough, full of imperfections. Perhaps you can coax a gem out of this stone. :-) --KSmrqT00:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't own a credit card if you must know. I do have a cheque account and a savings account, though. In addition, I tend to keep several million Yen under my pillow at night -- for the black hour. You should consider targeting those alternatives instead, or possibly taking out a credit card in my name, rather than looking for a nonexistent thing. (It nearly drove Sierpinski mad!) But thank you for your intense interest in attempting to uncover my identity. If you are successful, my sincerest best wishes to you and the proprietors of sundry establishments in Vegas.
All of the actions you propose are, of course, highly illegal. In fact, even the mere threat of them is illegal. So I am confronted with a conundrum. I did enjoy your paper in the Journal of Computational Physics earlier this year. Also, I don't wish to reveal my identity now or ever by "squealing". Furthermore, I like you. So, balancing the scales of lady justice, I have decided to forgive you. So I don't wish to phone up the FBI, Minnesota state police, or the Minneapolis police regarding your threat.
Anyway, we're both cranky. It's really late for me, and I hear it gets pretty cold in Minnesota this time of year, so I imagine you're cranky too. Let's just call it a truce, ok?
Gosh you scared me. Come on, is it that bad to go to stip bars, Vegas or not? By the way, I moved to California in the meantime, where the weather is nice. It is a warm afternoon at the moment, so I am not cranky at all. :) But yes, truce is fine. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as strip clubs, I guess it depends on how cheap the drinks are. But, hey, if I ever run into you in Edinburgh, I'll buy you a lager the likes of which you cannot find in the US. In the mean time, enjoy the beautiful weather...
...while it lasts. [click][click][click] Mwahahaha! [/DrEvil]151.204.6.171
Jitse, when will you learn to blame the bot? Of course, if the bot performs admirably, you've got to tap me on the shoulder, as after all a bot is stupid and couldn't do it by itself. :)
I guess some text got corrupted (maybe because of the slow server connection). I cleaned up the cruft and restarted the bot. Now it seems to work well. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Louis Epstein
I understand your concerns and frustration, Oleg. We'll see how it goes. I'll be updating a "Louis Epstein punctuation patrol" meter on my user page if you want to know when was last time I cleaned up after him. Regards, Babajobu16:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ivan Gundulić article. Whether he should be concidered Serbian or not. This: [1] (in English) and these[2], which writes perfectly about his entire Serbian ancestry and this: [3] which states his life's works and Serbian commemoration. However, the newer version of Britannica (the upper-mentioned is older) claims that he is Croatian; although, it has been proven unreliable as it claims that Rudjer Boskovic was also a Croat, yet he was a Serb. What should we do? HolyRomanEmperor18:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did check the references you told me, and also visited talk:Ivan Gundulić. There is no evidence of dispute in there from what I saw. To decide if somebody is Serb or Kroat would require me to know detailed information about that person and the time period in which he lived, knowledge which I don't have. As such, thank you for asking administrator help, but I don't think there is anything I could help with.
There is no evidence there either of revert wars or any other bad things. If such stuff happens and mediation/temporary page protection is needed, just let me know. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
list of categories
what I was looking for, failed to find, and then decided we need, is a list of categories in the mathematical sense, something like:
The category Set of all sets together with functions between sets, where composition is the usual function composition (The following are subcategories of Set, obtained by adding some type of structure onto a set, by requiring that morphisms are functions which respect this added structure, and where morphism composition is simply ordinary function composition.)
which I copied from category (mathematics), except I was thinking more comprehensive. I'm not sure if every category needs its own article, but I think probably most of them do (well, maybe we don't need separate articles for e.g. Set and FinSet, I don't know). You can also look under the 'C' heading of Category:Category theory. Maybe instead of a list, we need a Category:Categories, though I would prefer a list. What do you think? -Lethe | Talk03:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Почему ты не используешь своего бота в других Википедиях? Я думаю, если изменить код , то его можно использовать не только для сиска математиков, но и списков физиков, химиков, инженеров и др.--Ahonc13:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I don't use my bot in other Wikipedias and for other lists (physicists, chemimsts, etc) is simple. As you saw with the list of mathematicians and the many discussions we had, there is a big amount of human oversight required and many things to tweak in the code. Besides, using a bot imposes certain (sometimes too rigid) formats in which the list must be. If in the future I get requests from other places for bot help, and people interested in those lists are willing to cooperate, I would consider running my bot as long as somebody checks after it and reports problems. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Скажи" своему боту чтобы он не изменял записи, где нету знаков вопроса (кроме тех математиков, которые ещё живы).
Тогда он не будет исправлять наши изменения.--Ahonc13:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your most recent addition to the discussion. I had planned to post something similar (explaining each number's importance and commenting on bad-faith reversions), but your post is probably better worded than I could have hoped to achieve, and less inflammatory :-) - Fredrik | tc15:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I will start to write about my school as an essay, no more vanliazation, i am only 9 years old give me a break! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevada (talk • contribs)
Everything is fine, relax. :) I wrote to you two messages for two different issues (putting {{delete}} tags and saying "I hate you"). I did not attempt to scare you, sorry if I did.) Oleg Alexandrov (talk23:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, people will start lining up for authographs soon. Not this person though. In spite of the solemn promise above, the kid kept on vandalizing and was blocked eventually. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is Cx necessary
Hello Oleg - We have been having a discussion about the proper direction of the heat capacity article. Could you take a look at the talk page under "Is Cx necessary" and please give us your opinion? I know its a lot of back and forth to wade through, but we really need your help. Thanks - PAR15:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oleg, would you do me a favor and correct the history at List of large cardinal properties? I created it on 6 November by cut-and-paste from Large cardinal property, and I noted that on the discussion page. However a recent discussion on another page has suggested that it really ought to have the history there. It needs the history from Large cardinal property, up to and including 21:18 6 November 2005 (UTC). --Trovatore
It can't? I thought that's what admins were supposed to be good for. The history does, in principle, apply to both articles (though in fact there's not a lot left in the current large cardinal property from before the split). --Trovatore22:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After moving registration out of the way to registration (computer vision) and fixing "what links here", I realize a better name would be "image registration". Since this is my second rename for the page and I know you're watching it, I'm asking your opinion this time. Art LaPella00:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my opinion would be that there was no need to move that from registration to start with. I doubt that this word has any meaning outside the usual sence of the word and the medical imaging notion, which was what that article was about. So I think you were trying to solve a problem which did not exist. How about moving it back?
Perhaps you would see why I moved it from registration if you had seen what was linked to it. I have since gone through them all, but there were about 10-15 links that were really about image registration, and about 40 links for other meanings of the word. I think this is an English language problem - try typing the word "registration" into Google and see what it means to most Americans. Art LaPella02:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
sry, I just saw that there was no Geography article, and I was like What????? I didn't even stop and think —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookworm6 (talk • contribs)
Ok, just one question... What did you mean with R^n?
I do believe, as you might have noticed, I could be in the wrong article... But if R^n is something on "advanced mathematics" like R* is (Riceri's), then it would be an even wrost article for me. I love mathematics, specially statistics, but I'm not a deep knowledger of any and I'm definetly not looking for it.
Sorry Cawas, I should have been more explicit. You see, once you have a bunch of numbers, you can do a lot with them. You can arrange them in a row, or in a column, or in a table of some size (say 3×4, or 2×6, or 12×1, if you have 12 elements). From one point of view, it does not really matter how you arrange the numbers, it is still 12 numbers. From another point of view, if you want to do something more interesting with this set of numbers, like adding them or multiplying them, then the "shape" of the box containing the numbers matters.
That's why a matrix is not just an ordered family of elements, it also matters how you stack them together. And back to your comment, one means R^n when the elements are put in a row or in a column, anyway in a box in which one side is one, so that box is actually a one-dimensional array. See also Euclidean space. Does that answer the question. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ordering see also sections
I'm curious, because I have had the habit of ordering see also sections alphabetically (many articles I read). I saw you fixed my edit on derivative. Is it customary to order the points in see also sections by relevance or some other "parameter"? Karol10:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Karol. I have no idea what the rule is and if there is any. As for derivative, I found it strange that the first link in the see also section was to automatic derivative, I would have thought a link to antiderivative or to derivative (examples) would be more relevant. So, I prefer to write things in order of relevance (although that can lead to personal biases) than alphabetical, but I don't know if there is any rule about that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Math font size
Greetings.
Thank you for your comments on my edits of the Schwarz Lemma and Riemannian mapping theorem. I didn't know Wikipedia administrators were so personal in their replies. Seems like a good place to share knowledge.
Anyway, about the thing you spoke of, namely that replacing HTML with TeX is bad, can't that be fixed if you would just make the PNG images smaller? Formulas look way too big in math formulas on this site (in my opinion), but since I'm new, I suppose that has been discussed dozens of times. I'm still learning to navigate around this website, and trying to get used to the interface, but I suppose that will come in time.
And my final question: Since when is a unit disc denoted with ? In all books on complex analysis that I have looked through, it's either denoted with or .
Regards,
Weierstraß.
Hi Weierstraß (you must be the ghost of the famous guy :) I also like more D than Δ for the unit disc, but makes me feel uneasy.
About images. No matter what size you choose, somebody will complain about difference in size of text and images. To have a good view the image resolution has to be syncronized with the text font size. This issue of images is a very messy one, and no good solution exists. People pray that MathML will help things. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't even know if I agree with myself. HTML formulas have their own problems. I tend to lean towards HTML, and I try to not replace HTML with PNG if HTML works fine. But again, there is no good solution. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop Mathbot from alphabetically reordering the AfD subpages. The archives are done on a time creation basis and should be preserved that way. --AllyUnion(talk)01:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, I rather that you maintain a separate page for it. The archives should be historically preserved in the order they were nominated. --AllyUnion(talk)01:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Question about adement reverter - not open to discussion
Hi, you're the only admin I know, so I was wondering what to do about someone consistantly reverting my work, and refusing to constructively discuss any edits. User:WAS 4.250 has done this in edits I've done to a couple pages including E=mc^2. Granted, it was warrented to revert as my edits require further discussion. However, instead of discussing anything, he has simply gave me one liners like "Give me a source and we'll talk" when a source obviously doesn't solve anything. Hes erased my post on the top discussion page of E=mc^2, and replaced it with some writing I wrote on his talk page - putting it at the bottom of E=mc^2 's discussion page. I have half a mind to call him a vandal - but I know that he is simply stuck in his ways and .. stubborn. He indirectly called me a troll - which i found out is not what I am.. If any of my posts were "inflammatory" it is his own fault because hes being unhelpful.
- In any case, what should I do about this? Fresheneesz05:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I'm with WAS on this one. Maybe could have been nicer about it, but Fresheneesz was making incorrect/unsubstantiated edits without being willing to divulge sources. This to me is a big "no no." I would glady have reverted whatever WAS did (in fact I was about to before I noticed that he did the same). I think WAS is quite open to discussion - with sources given. - JustinWick05:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion would be that you guys revert the article to some version before all of these arguments started. Then, it is good if the person willing to add content state beforehand on the talk page what exactly he/she is willing to add, and wait for comments from the others. This in my experience is the less frustrating way of dealing with things.
I put that article on my watchlist, so I will keep on watch on what you guys edit/discuss. By the way, I also thought that E=mc² was exact and not an approximation, and would be interested in references to the contrary. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fresheneesz is confounding a couple of things here. He's talking about the total (relativistic) energy of a moving object, in the laboratory frame. But that's not what the equation E=mc² is about; it's talking about the energy equivalent of the object's rest mass, and for that purpose it's exact (at least to the extent that special relativity itself is exact). So the bottom line is that Fresheneesz's edit was properly reverted, on the merits as well as procedurally. Might have been better if WAS had bothered to explain that, of course. --Trovatore13:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that your main expertise field is math (mine is CS), but your help as an administrator is really needed on the Moldovan language page. Should you choose to intervene, you will be the first editor to actually come from the Republic of Moldova. :)
Just to tell you that every time I try to refresh the number of open discussions at WP:AFD/Old, I get a "Cannot Find Server" error. Perhaps your script at the UCLA server crashed for some reason? Titoxd(?!?)03:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The UCLA server crashed indeed (not because of my script :), and there is no hope until Monday when the system administrators come back to work. I will post a note at the talk page of WP:AFD/Old also. Thanks for letting me know. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Node ue. The world is small, isn't it? I thought I will not intersect with you guys beyond the mo wikipedia, but was wrong.
By the way, as far as I know my ancestors were romanians, and my grandfather's last name was Romanian-sounding (Alexandru), only to be changed by the Russians. But that does not matter much. Please don't think that Anittas and others you met are representative of Romanians. I got my Bachelor's in Bucharest, and met very nice people in there. I guess just the ultranationalists mess up at the Moldovan language article. (And please note that Anittas is worse than most of those people, he thinks all Romania is crap except for the region he is from. :)
One question. You seem to know indeed Romanian to some extent (I can't tell how much). How's that, it seems that you have a perfectly English name? Also, where are you from originally, and where do you contribute from? (You made me curious, and there is no info on your user page. :) You can reply in here, I will keep this page on my watchlist for a while.
I certainly understand that Romanians in general are a pleasant thoughtful bunch. I have met quite a few who have been very pleasant. But as you will have found out by now, Wikipedia tends to draw the extremists from any crowd. The people with moderate opinions are often a minority here. So we see people like Bonaparte and Anittas, and on the other hand people such as Ghirandajo.
I was born and raised in Arizona. I've never been to Romania or Moldova, though I hope to go someday. I speak Romanian and/or Moldovan as my "mother tongue", but I've lost quite a bit of it. This is because I've some Moldovan heritage.
But as often is the case in the United States, names are deceiving. The original patriarch of my paternal line was a Danish man named William Williamson, whose family moved to Michigan. And yet, that is only a tiny minority of my ancestry.
And I know who made the personal attacks -- User:Bonaparte. He just loves that sort of thing, and has done it before.
Daca nu-ti convine ca altii sa te insulte pe tine, asa cum a facut utilizatorul anonim, atuncea nu vorbi prostii despre altii pe pagina lui Node. Eu cu tine nu am treaba. Nici nu stiu cine esti, nici nu ma intereseaza. Iar nu te mai boci atata ca nu sunt politicos, etc. Cu cine sa fiu politicos? Cu boul ala? Lasa-ma dracului in pace cu bocirea asta. Nu-ti convine, sanatate si la revedere! --Anittas06:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings
Hi Oleg -- thanks for noticing the small characteristic polynomial update -- accidentally missed the edit summary box. =) I haven't attempted to edit much, but I've availed myself heavily of Wikipedia mathematics articles for quite some time. The quality is fantastic overall and the breadth and depth of the information is absolutely invaluable to those of us who must do all of our learning independently. I daresay Wikipedia is quickly revolutionising independent study of mathematics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.178.22 (talk • contribs)
sory, after micheal hardy's deletion in "density estimation", the reference for deleted part, became unuseless. —preceding unsigned comment by85.99.216.180 (talk • contribs)
I've tagged this (WIKI DUDI JATS) nonsense for speedy delete a couple of times now, but the anon author deletes the tag before an admin can check it out and responds to the attempted deletes within the article itself. I see that you might be online now and would be obliged if you took a look before the tag is removed yet again. Also, keep up the good work, I've seen some of your votes/edits/admin work and have always been impressed. Cheers. Youngamerican03:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did my best on the math formatting, I will get to the rewording tomorrow, it's past my bedtime ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icedemon (talk • contribs)
You are right. I replaced the text with what is in your sandbox. With one exception, I like the period (.) inside of the math tags. Otherwise, if it is outside, it can look a bit misaligned, and sometimes it even goes to a new line. Thank you for your patience. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You may know it as something different; see this. The reason is that most functions of the form where f and g are polynomials of equal degree will return one when put into the ratio test, and this allows you to prove (or disprove) that it does (not) diverge to a limit. If not, I'll get started on the article. x42bn6Talk02:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that there is a problem with the quality of adminship on the Moldovan language page.
I have stated it before, but it seems that User:Mikkalai would not even acknowledge the problem.
Could you, please, advise?
ps: Even though I am not Anittas, I am apologizing for what Anittas said (for instance, during the RfA of Ronline). He does not represent Romanian mainstream.
Why apologize? Ask any Romanian in Romania if it's normal for a Romanian to hold a Russian name. People would just shake their heads. Are you saying that my opinion is evil? You don't know me and I don't believe we ever spoke; so please, don't judge! --Anittas11:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dpotop, I will now follow that article closely. I do think the block of Bonaparte by Mikka was too harsh, but please note that Bonaparte is a troll, and he was doing nothing but silly things. Hope that will be a lesson.
Anittas, Dpotop has a point. Your show at Ronline's admin nominations, requests for me changing my passport name, and obscene jokes at Node ue's page are not very helpful. Maybe you think you do nothing wrong, but please stop that anyway. That will help the Romanian cause on the English Wikipedia. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To Anittas (sorry, Oleg, for clogging your talk page, but I think I need to express here my position):
So, Anittas, what is a Romanian name? Mine is Dumitru, which is of Greek origin. Bonaparte's name is Dan, which is Jewish in origin. I had a high school coleague whose family name was Ungur. He was Romanian, from Ardeal. Oleg's name is of slavic origin (Russian, if you want). So what? I would really love to see him considering himself Romanian, because he has different experiences than me, which can be enriching for me (and for you). As in the past (recall that Romania was largely made by Moldavians, and that the Romanian language was made by Moldavians) Moldavians have a lot to offer today.
In my oppinion, guys like you, even more than Russian propaganda, prevented union back in teh 1990's and gave Romanians a bad fame there. How do you expect Moldavians to want union while you are caling them are dumb, russified, or communists? I believe you should respect them, because they remained Romanian despite russification. We cannot proud ourselves with this.
I'm also a Moldavian, from the Botosani county. We didn't unite because Iliescu went to Moldova and talked crap - and because Moldovans couldn't tie their own shoes. They still can't. Yes, Dumitru is of Greek origin. These Christian names - and Hebrwe names - were included in our culture, therefore, they count as Romanian names. Later, in the 19th century, we included other names from Italy and France. That's cool. Some like to name their kids after some book they read. That's also cool. What is not cool is to have a name that was forced on you, and keep it. It was forced on him, was it not? I don't know, but wouldn't you think it would be peculiar if you met a Jew with the name Hitler? --Anittas10:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have relatives across the Prut, and I can say that the right-wing propaganda of the time (e.g. that of PNT) was disastrous for the image of Romania. Many Moldavians were scared by the extremism of these guys. User:Dpotop
So, you say that because Hungarians de-nationalized and killed many Romanians, all Romanians with names of Hungarian origin should change them? User:Dpotop
Anittas, let us settle this business once and for all. I thought you are a smart person who gets it, but it seems you don't. So I will be blunt.
I am who I am. I bear my father's last name and I am happy with that. I got a first name which my parents thought was a good name, and I love my name. It is part of my identity.
While I studied in Bucharest for four years, with all my colleagues being Romanian, they treated me as one of theirs, in spite of the name. I have a friend from Suceava, your Moldova, and he is a great friend of mine, again in spite of my name.
I guess you uploaded your pictures with .PNG entry, but then linked to them with the .png entry. Case matters.
Thanks for the pictures! By the way, I think one should make the lines quite a bit thicker, as they are hard to see. Also, I would think that it is good to have the function graph in one color, and all the rectanges/trapezia in another color, but same for both of them. I got confused why different rectangles have different colors. But that is up to you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I did it because, as in the case of the trapezoid, it may be useful to see the differences between each instead of continuous. I agree that they could be hte same color, but I spent over an hour on those, and at least for today, I don't want to change them :). Oh, and thanks for fixing the x^3, I wasn't sure if the captions could be modified using that markup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icedemon (talk • contribs)
Hello, thank you for your comments about the images in the cruciform stub, i've updated them, please let me know if they're ok now.
I really thank you for your corrections, since i'm new here and wish to help the community.
I'm sorry i made a mess at the Proof that 0.999 ... page, however i still dislike that section; i've reworded it, will you please review it here and let me know if it'd be ok if i put that up? Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesushaces (talk • contribs)
The pictures look good, thanks! The numbers on the axes are still rather small to see, but that is not that important.
Thank you, will try to make the numbers on the axes look better in the thumbs. Jesushaces
Moldovan business
Salut Landroni. Am citit mesajul tau pe pagina lui Bonaparte. Am niste comentarii.
Baniesc ca ti-am zis, dar oricum, as vrea sa stii ca in pofida numelui meu eu sunt Roman, cum imi sunt si parintii si buneii din toate partile (numele a fost rusificat). Am facut studiile la Bucuresti, unde am avut enorm de mult de ajutor de la colegii romani, am facut prieteni buni, si sunt foarte recunoscator la tot ce am primit de la ei. Eu ma consider roman, si as fi pentru unirea cu Romania. (Limba moldoveneasca astfel e o constructie politica, etc.)
Pe de alta parte, ca contribuitor de un an la Wikipedia si administrator, imi pasa mai intai si intai ca oamenii sa se inteleaga biine, sa fie productivi si colegiali. Asta fara importanta la privirile lor.
Asa, ce vreau sa zic este urmatorul. Eu nu sunt de acord cu unele din pareri la lui Node ue. Pe de alta parte, eu am fost implicat mult la acea mo.wikipedia, si pot sa zic ca Node joaca cinstit. Oamenii au dreptul la alta parere, si au dreptul sa discute atata timp cat totul este intro atmosfera civilizata.
Pe de alta parte, Anittas si Bonaparte, pe care ar trebui sa ii consideram frati, as vrea sa stii ca joaca foarte urat. Poate din cauza ca sunt destui de recenti la aceasta enciclopedie, si nu stiu regulile. Dar oricum, as vrea sa stii ca ei recurg la atacuri personale, ofense dure, vandalism (sub contul lor sau anonim), si revertare a paginilor de multe ori.
Astfel zis, eu am cam stat mai mult ca observator la pagina Moldovan language. Daca vreai sa te implici in aceste chestii, ar fi biine sa faci un studiu mai intai, sa vezi exact ce se intampla. Asta oricare ti-ar fi positia si deciziile. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
De fapt iti dau dreptate. Referitor la mai multe momente. In primul rand eu de asemenea ma consider roman. Insa mai degraba eu sunt moldovean de origini romane. Noi, cei din Moldova, suntem diferiti de cei din Romania. Orice ai spune, orice ai face. Insa oricum nimeni nu poate sa-mi spuna ca eu nu am origini romane. Si ca eu nu vorbesc limba romana.
In privinta corectitudinii, eu nu am inteles cum au ajuns romanii (daca nu gresesc) sa faca atacuri personale la adresa lui Node (gen "agent stalinist", "evreu rus din america", etc.). Insa eu nu am vazut corectitudine din partea lui Node. Nici vreo oarecare flexibilitate a opiniilor. Si parerea mea e ca Node scoate peri suri pe loc gol. Adica, limba moldoveneasca, Wikipedia moldoveneasca, Wikipedia moldoveneasca in grafia chirilica - sunt pur si simplu niste aberatii. Apropo, nu am inteles unde au disparut comentariile de pe http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page, deoarece erau multe, multe pareri negative referitoare la aceasta Wikipedie si in special din partea persoanelor indignate care nu participa activ la Wikipedia (organizatii, etc.).
Sunt sincer cand spun ca nu imi permit sa urmaresc toate evenimentele de pe Wikipedia. Eu totusi cred ca ar fi bine de reinceput discutia pe Wikipedia-I:
suprimarea Wikipediei Moldovenesti, crearea unui articol amplu explicativ Limba Romana pe Wikipedia Romana (care sa contina caractere chirilice acolo unde trebuie, etc.)
analogic, suprimarea articolului Limba Moldoveneasca (adica crearea unui redirect) si completarea Limbii Romane cu toata informatia necesara (prezentarea diferitelor puncte de vedere, etc.).
Mie imi pare ca asa ar fi corect. Imi spui ce crezi.
Da, si, pana la urma, Jeorjika a fost învestit in calitate de administrator pe Wikipedia Moldoveneasca sau nu?
PS Referitor la Node, posibil ca am exagerat. Si sigur ca nu e productiv. Insa cand am vazut ca nu doar in problema limbii moldovenesti exista reactii negative la adresa lui Node, nu m-am abtinut (in special cand am aruncat un ochi pe discutia de pe Moldovan language. landroni15:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oleg, eu am dreptul sa votez la Request for Adminship? Si in privinta lui Node, daca nu gresesc, englezii spun point taken; am invatat lectia. Trebuia sa ma informez. landroni15:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sigur ca ai voie sa votezi la alegeri pentru administrator, oricine are voie. In privinta corectitudinii, nimeni nu este perfect intradevar, eu ce am avut in vedere este ca amicii nostri romani au mers mult mai departe decat zicand "evreu american" si "agent stalinist". Ti-as arata exemple concrete, dar probabil nu este necesar.
Salut iarasi. Vezi chiar mai sus raspunsul meu la chestia legata de Node ue. Acum sa iti raspund la celelalte intrebari.
Comentariile de pe http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page au fost sterse de un anonim care a inlocuit acel text cu niste prostii. Deci vandalism curat. Eu am pus textul la loc.
Este imposibil de sters Wikipedia moldoveneasca. Oamenii cu dreptul de decizii sunt majoritea americani, si in punctul lor de vedere, ei nu se amesteca si lasa pe oricine sa vaca inca o versiune a Wikipedia in orice limba. De exemplu, cat ti-ar pasa tiie ca niste separatisti in Africa vor wikipedia in caracterele lor? Dar eu banuiesc ca acea Wikipedia va lancezi, caci doar Node ue este interesant, si chiar el nu are prea mult timp pentru ea.
Eu nu as fi de acord cu stergerea articolului Moldovan language si facand redirect la Romanian language. Intradevar, este o constructie politica, dar istoria acestei constructii ar trebui explicata si clarificata undeva. Eu nu cred ca romanii ne vor lasa sa mutam mult material de acolo la Romanian language, caci nu este treaba lor cu toate prostiile pe care le inventeaza guvernul Moldovei. Eu cred ca problema principala va fi sa ne intalegem la continutul acelui articlol Moldovan language.
Jeorjika nu a fost facut administrator. Era clar de la bun inceput ca ce romanii vor e sa il dea pe Node ue afara si sa instaleze pe cineva care nu are experienta dar care este de acord cu ei. Nu asa se fac treburile pe aici, si nimeni nu a luat acel vot in serios.
Cred ca merita totusi de incercat. Nu trebuie de renuntat la aparare, chiar daca esti sigur ca vei pierde. Aceasta imi aminteste despre unele momente din istoria Moldovei, in special apararea inflacarata a Romaniei a teritoriilor sale. Rusii spun: "Noi intram". Romanii (dar las' ca si moldovenii sunt buni in cazul acesta): "Ce probleme, intrati. Noi nu vrem razboi cu voi." De aceea si nimeni nu respecta, nici pe moldoveni (asta daca gasesti pe cineva care a auzit despre Moldova), nici pe romani.
Eu nu as fi de acord cu stergerea articolului Moldovan language si facand redirect la Romanian language.
De-acord. Intr-adevar romanii nu ar permite. Si totusi tot ar fi corect sa fie un singur articol. Fie.
Si despre pararile lui Node ue.
Despre Node, probabil tot ai dreptate. In special in privinta romanilor. Mie, peste hotare, ce mi-a parut foarte rau: eu prefer sa zic ca-s moldovean, ca vin din ex-URSS, decat ca sunt roman, ca vin din Romania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Landroni (talk • contribs)
Multi romani sunt de treaba. Sunt doar vreo doi care se tin de prostii. Sa vedem daca se vor schima lucrurile.
Despre encyclopedia mo. Eu nu mai am idei. Am rugat la village pump, mi-au zis sa ma duc la bureaucrats. Am fost la bureaucrats, mi-au zis sa ma duc pe mailing list. Am fost la mailing list, si nimanui acolo nu ii pasa. Nu stiu ce sa facem acum. Tu ai ceva idei? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Da. Cheia sta in Wikipedia-I. Data trecuta discutia a lincezit. Trebuie de pornit din nou discutia. Si intotdeauna gasesti oameni de treaba. Si eu cunosc romani de treaba. Insa generalizarile se fac intotdeauna dupa ceilalti.
Bonaparte. Eu sunt Liviu pentru Oleg. Pentru restul, eu sunt landroni. Iar pentru votare, chiar daca Ronline pare o candidatura potrivita pentru mo.wikipedia.org, inca nu am decis. Asa ca nu e sigur ca voi vota. Am examen pana la ora 14.00. landroni08:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I just changed the link (in Runge's theorem) back to the way it was because you took my section from the article on Holomorphic functions and erased it completely. However, I noticed you added the definition of holomorphy for non-open sets into the definition section itself. Didn't you say that would confuse readers that above? But anyway, as for myself, I like it the way you have done it. Mine was phrased and put forward in a too complicated way. So good going. Weierstraß18:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way I added it it will confuse people little, as it is only one sentence hidden behind another sentence with the same language. While the way you put it, it looked as if there is an entire new world of holomorphic functions on nonopen sets, which is not true, that's that a convention that a function on a closed set is basically defined in an open set containing the closed set.
What are you referrring to, optimizing a volume? You would need to be more specific. By the way, whenever possible I do try to use English, as this is the English Wikipedia. Of course, if this were the French wikipedia, we would use French, my king. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent comment
I didn't repeat my self. I was asked on my reasoning and I gave him a reply. You and others dragged my name around on your talkpages; talking about me behind my back without consulting with me first. That other guy who talked about me never said a word to me, before. You make false accusations when you tell me to stop vandalizing pages under anonymous accounts and you spread disinformation. One such example is this one:
---
Pe de alta parte, Anittas si Bonaparte, pe care ar trebui sa ii consideram frati, as vrea sa stii ca joaca foarte urat. Poate din cauza ca sunt destui de recenti la aceasta enciclopedie, si nu stiu regulile. Dar oricum, as vrea sa stii ca ei recurg la atacuri personale, ofense dure, vandalism (sub contul lor sau anonim), si revertare a paginilor de multe ori.
---
You have called me an extremist for saying that you should change the name that was forced on you. You said that I played dirty, you implied that I'm unintelligent on my talkpage and you criticize me for my involvement in my conflict with Node; but not once did you question Node's intentions. You are biased in your judgement and you yourself admitted that you're not aware of everything that has transpired. May I suggest that you back off. If you want to keep a name of the people that ruined your country, that's your business - but don't whine when people like me disprove of it. I have the right not to like it. --Anittas21:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments on my edits to the article on numerical analysis. I am currently taking an undergraduate course, and the subject seems fascinating.
cat2020
You better be really sure it is indeed fascinating. You might just think so, then decide to do it for the rest of your life, and then be sorry later. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Problema de mate
Salut,
Am o problema de mate si cunostiintele mele nu ma ajuta. As vrea sa stiu care e
min_{n>0}(abs(ceil(\rho*n)-\rho*n))
pentru un \rho real oarecare (n variaza in numere intregi). Pentru \rho rational, minimul e 0. Insa nu stiu daca asta e adevarat pentru toate numerele reale. De exemplu, pentru \rho=\pi .
Hi Vasile. No your edits were not controversal. But I think it is not a good idea to start editing away that article without discussion. It will lead to people thinking that anything goes. There is some discussion on the talk page about what to change. I guess that needs to be dealt first. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My request
1. Do not post on my talkpage again.
2. Do not warn me; do not threaten me, again.
3. If you want to file a complain against me, just do it.
4. That comment stays. If you want to complain to others about the poem that I posted, translate it and let others be the judge of it.
Hi Anittas. The matter was about your post in a thread by Danutz claiming that Node ue was a hypocryte. And your children's poem with the doggie caught stealing while denying it was meant to continue along the same path. I removed both posts and wrote both to Danutz and to you about it that it was not a productive use of that article talk page.
You put the post back, but now it is not in context, so it can be interpretted as a sample of Romanian (as Bonaparte put it).
But I really believe we need some Moldovans on the "Moldovan language" page. I think it's the most fair approach. But some of you need to get involved. You said you will only moderate. Ok. But you must know some other Moldovans, and could kindly ask them to take the matter in their hands. After all, it's about the "Moldovan language". :)
BTW: does the spelling "Moldavian" bother you? Just checking, because Node said so. I always assumed that the English translation is "Moldavia", and has always been so. Does "Moldavia" imply a Russian/Soviet sentiment, while "Moldova" does not?
PS: Can you help me with that math problem? It really bugs me. I reduced a CS problem to that, but I don't know what to do with that rounding operator...
Dpotop
Hi Dpotop. By they why don't you use your account? I think it would be better that way, especially since there is a dispute at that page you are posting.
About your problem. That is not a computer science problem. It has some rather convoluted math behind it. I don't know what your background is, but see the following link. Anyway, the answer to your problem you posted some sections above this,
Of course it helps. The proof is so simple -- it reminded me of my 1st year as a student in the Univ. of Bucharest. I just forgot too much of my math background to be able to do it. :) As for your e-mail, I don't have your it. Dpotop22:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mathbot
That arrogant, barefaced, biggety, blatant, bluff, brash, brassy, brazen, bumptious, busybody, cheeky, chutzpadik, cocksure, condescending, contemptuous, contumelious, crusty, derisive, discourteous, disdainful, dismissive, disparaging, disregardful, disrespectful, egotistical, facy, flip, flippant, forward, fresh, gally, gratuitous, hubristic, ill-mannered, impertinent, impolite, impudent, insolent, irreverent, jumped-up, malapert, meddlesome, nervy, officious, overweening, pert, pompous, presumptuous, pretentious, procacious, pushy, rash, rude, sassy, saucy, shameless, smart-alecky, smug, supercilious, unabashed, unblushing, unchary, uncivil, uppity, upstart, wise-ass, silly little bag-of-bits bot of yours has now ordered me to archive my talk page! O' the audacity! the impudence! the temerity! Paul August☎22:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You should add to that disobedient, owner-despising, self-indulging, three-laws-violating. Paul, I swear to disassemble and send it to the furnance on this very moment! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please Stop What?
On User_talk:128.107.253.42 you indicated this host is committing vandalism, but gave no indication of which pages were being vandalized. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia but am curious as to what (presumably) a coworker modified. -- William McVey
Sorry, I should be been more clear. It is about this edit. Was not that bad, but there was another old message on that talk page, and I thought about raising the notch a bit. Tell your coworkers to not do that again. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paul. No I did not mean to do it. And if you ask me, I did not see your comment on that page, and I did not purposefully select anything with the mouse or delete anything. There are two options. Either I don't know what I am talking about, which is possible, or there was some synchronization issue with the server. That was a long answer to your question. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comentariul despre Node
Motivul pentru care eu am pus comentariul acolo este pentru a sublinia că până şi el e de acord cu faptul că româna şi moldoveneasca sunt identice, prin faptul că copiază articole din Wikipedia în română. Am deja un cont la Wikipedia în engleză de mult timp (User:Danutz), dar nu prea îl folosesc (după cum vezi nici măcar nu mi-am scris nimic în pagina de utilizator), pentru că de obicei mai mult decât interwiki nu pun la en.wiki . --Danutz
Despre wikipedia-l mailing list. Acel subiect a Wikipediei moldovenesti a fost ridicat de trei ori pana acum dupa cate stiu la wikipedia-l. Ronline ar trebui sa stie mai biine. De fiecare data audienta a fost foarte mica si nimanui nu i-ai pasat. Eu nu mai doresc sa ridic subiectul inca o data, caci nu cred ca v-a fi productiv.
Intradevar :). Contine. Iar acum nu mai contine. Pe Opera a disparut cand am facut Refresh. Pe Internet Explorer a aparut. Straniu. Iar Talk Page-ul eu sunt sigur ca erau mult mai multe comentarii, in special de la cei ce nu participa activ. E important. Nu doar cei ce participa la aceasta Wikipedie considera ca ea trebuie inchisa.
Si, Oleg, din alt punct de vedere. Si limba asta moldoveneasca a existat candva, in grafia chirilica. Adica, poate ar fi un compromis de pastrat mo.wikipedia insa ca aceasta, pe Main Page, sa explice ca in prezent grafia chirilica nu se utilizeaza pentru limba romana in Moldova. Ca alfabetul latin e oficial. Ca alfabetul chirilic era utilizat doar pe timpurile ocupatiei. Adica limba moldoveneasca poate fi considerata ca atare doar ca limba moarta. Constitutia, etc. O clarificare exacta. Astfel incat sa fie clar ca Moldova de astazi si alfabetul chirilic nu au nimic in comun. Scurt, clar si cuprinzator. In felul acesta nici moldovenii si nici romanii care viziteaza mo.wikipedia nu se simt ofensati, si Node ramane cu sufletul impacat. Caci intradevar, asta efort trebuia de depus pentru a face Wikipedia asta. Si nota care sta acolo tot merge. landroni10:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cred ca intradevar te-ai saturat de aceasta. E interesant ca au fost pornite discutii interesante pe Wikipedia-I despre mo.wikipedia de catre straini. In, rest, iti dau pace :). Pe curand. landroni14:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Please maybe you would like to share with me how an archive is made. I don't want to make myself one right now, but in the future who knows? :) Take care. Thank you. -- Bonaparte talk & contribs21:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, having the "diff" on the watchlist show not only the last diff but the diffs in the last 24 hours, would be great. You could add your request below mine, maybe one of those cool javascript guys will have mercy on us. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ma retrag de pe pagina "Moldovan language".
Si cu ocazia asta imi pot permite sa iti spun direct ca situatia mi se pare ciudata.
Pe de o parte, nu pot crede ca tu consideri ca pozitia lui Node_ue corespunde realitatii.
Pe de alta parte, nu ar trebui sa fie treaba romanilor sa faca treaba moldovenilor.
Si cu asta ajung la tine. Inteleg ca nu poti, ca admin, interveni direct in dispute, dar exista si limite de bun simt. Nimeni nu te impiedica sa iti dai cu parerea, ca orice user, fara sa abuzezi de adminship. Nici macar nu esti obligat sa editezi articolul, ci doar sa iti dai cu parerea.
Nu iti iesi din situatia de admin spunand ca script-ul chirilic moldovean se transcrie in latin altfel decat rusa. Aici nu mai e vorba de o disputa, ce naiba, ca te-ai nascut acolo. Stiu despre ce vorbesc: citesc fluent in chirilic, si pot scrie (pe calculator, caci am cam uitat scrisul de mana).
Din pacate, plec de aici atunci cand nici un moldovean nu a participat la editarea articolului. Eu nu pot decat sa inteleg ca nu vi se pare important. Si atunci, de ce mi s-ar parea important mie?
Sper sa ne mai vedem pe alte pagini, poate disputate, dar fara zurlii pe ele.
Dumitru
ps: Daca vreodata afli, spune-mi si mie de ce Node e atat de romanofob (a mai intervenit si pe alte pagini, totdeauna pentru a spune ca lucruri romanesti sunt de fapt altceva). Adresa mea e dpotop1@yahoo.com .
Dpotop20:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Eu incerc sa discut pe cat este posibil. Daca te asteptai la un miracol atunci cand vine un admin din Moldova pe acea pagina, te gresesti. Eu consider un success faptul ca pana acum lucrurile pe acea pagina nu au fost atat de urate ca pana acum. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
E foarte bine ca esti un admin bun. Si nimeni nu ti-a cerut sa faci altceva. Dar ar fi bine sa mai si editezi un pic, sau macar sa participi in discutii, macar in cazurile de eroare evidenta (ai voie, cf. codului wiki). Sau, daca tunu ai timp sa o faci, mai trimite vorba la doi-trei dintre ei sa vina si sa editeze. Parca erau pe la mo.wiki, si pareau sa aiba incredere in tine. Problema mea este ca Moldovenii stralucesc prin absenta pe pagina asta. Si nu vreau sa iti subestimez contributia, dar linistea de pe pagina nu ti se datoreaza exclusiv, ci si eforturilor lui Bonaparte si Anittas de a nu reactiona prea dur, si ale celor care i-au tot sfatuit sa se calmeze si au moderat pozitiile (si au fost multi).Dpotop20:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Atunci iti voi trebui sa zic sa ai rabdare. Node ue a facut un revert mare azi, si pana acuma nu a adimis pe talk acest lucuru. Eu am sa intorc articolul deseara la unde a fost pana atunci, si il voi ruga sa faca edituri la pasaje concrete, fara reverturi. Nu prea are sens de reactionat rapid.
Si fii atent la un lucuru. Daca noi moldovenii am fost cam indifirenti la ce se intampla la acel articol, voi romanaii ati fost din pacate implicati prea mult. Astfel hai sa o luam incetisor si un pic mai detasat. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect de acord cu tine. Daca ar fi dupa mine, toti "romanii" ar trebui sa se retraga de pe pagina, cel putin vreo 2-3 saptamani. Eu o fac acum. Daca tu spui ca va veti implica, sunt linistit. Bafta, ca veti avea nevoie. :) Dpotop21:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nu, eu nu am promis ca ne v-om implica. Eu sunt responsabil doar pentru miine, si desi eu sunt interesat in acea pagina, am lucruri mult mai placute cu care sa ma ocup la Wikipedia, si astfel zis, ma voi implica in masura in care voi crede de cuviinta (desi unii din voi ar putea crede ca e prea putin). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In orice caz, sunt de acord cu tine ca in problemele "moldovenesti", "romanii" ar trebui doar sa va ajute si doar cand o doriti. Dpotop21:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I thank you for your advice. I am a new contributor... just hope not to damage the project!
This is the reply to your message
"
I undid your change at probability space since it looks to me that a measure is positive by definition. And I have a question, you removed some material with this edits, and it is not clear to me why. Would you mind going on to the talk page of that article and clarify? By the way, a good idea is to always put an edit summary when you contribute, that helps others understand what you changed. Again, welcome, and I hope you like it here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
"
Please note that a measure is not always positive. Generally, the space of measures on some Hausdorff topological space is a linear topological vector space. If you consider only positive measure, you lose the linear structure. It is ordinary to build up measures starting from positive measures, but general "signed" measures are quite widespread in Mathematics. From a point of view, measures are a generalization of functions (they are the completion of continuous functions under a suitable metrics), so it is natural to use "signed measures".
Anyway, when one says probability measure, he means a positive measure of "total mass" 1. Indeed, sometimes, the set of probability measures is also denoted $\mathcal{M}_{+,1}$.
So, I think it could work if we change:
"In mathematics, a probability space is a set S, together with a σ-algebra X on S and a probability measure P on that σ-algebra such that P(S) = 1."
in
"In mathematics, a probability space is a set S, together with a σ-algebra X on S and a probability measure P on that σ-algebra, namely a positive measure P on the measurable space (S,X) such that P(S) = 1."
As far as the changes in "expected value" are concerned, I simply erased two formulas and added a more general one. This is due to the fact that the formula works in any case, with no need of distinction beetween discrete and continuous random variables. Indeed, it works also for spaces of general "signed" measures and not only for probability spaces (of course, you have to replace the expected values with the integral with respect to that measure). I am going to write this on the discussion page.
Oh, I am well-aware of the fact that there are other kinds of measures. :) It is just our measure (mathematics) measure article defines a measure only to be positive. But you are right, yours is a clarification which I should not have been removed.
About erazing the formulas and adding a more general one. I think the aim there was to keep things simpler. You could have for example left those formulas over there, and then written the following: "in fact, a more general formula encompassing the above two are...". What do you think? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Keeping two different formulas looks quite unuseful to me, since they are expressing exactly the same concept, and probably an infinite series is not simpler to understand than an integral (or, the ones who know what an infinite series is, also know what an integral is). Moreover, I do not believe that the distinction between discrete and continuous random variable has a real meaning.
In order to make things simpler, we could leave the formula for the first momentum only ($). In any case, I do not think that this representation formula deserves a "section status" (as before), but just a "subsection status".
gala.martin
Matt, thanks! I was adding birth/death categories to mathemticians, and at some point added a "feature" which actually screwed things up. I was peridocally checking the output of the bot, and I would have detected that bug eventually, but probably more would have slipped through without you noticing that. Gosh, never happened to me before, I will put much more care.
Anway, I reverted all 32 articles corrupted by my bot. I also checked a good chunck in the past, and it looks that those other 300 or so articles are OK. Thanks a lot again!
And, can you please unblock my bot now? :) I don't plan to use it today, but it does some batch housekeeping own its on from time to time (those are foolproof, they've been running for months). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nici o problemă. Oricum nu sunt interesat în a transforma articolul într-o unealtă de propagandă ultra-naţionalistă. Doar sunt de părere că ar trebui să prezentăm o versiune cât mai completă şi echilibrată.
Mai este ceva. Am văzut că eşti din Moldova deci poate poţi să mă ajuţi. Cunoşti vreo sursă care descrie ce-i cu graiul şantist? Ştiu că cei de pe partea dreaptă a Nistrului îi numesc pe cei din Transnistria şantişti. Nu am trecut deloc Nistrul. Poate cunoşti tu mai bine situaţia. Constantzeanu03:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't doubt your intentions. Just trying to make sure some people not think too many changes happen too fast.
I have no idea about what is going on in Transnistria. I've never been there (just crossed through), and don't know much about their language. Thanks for your post. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Oleg. Is a fact that we are right and also many. So, I don't care about that kid, and I won't calm down until I see a version that I agree with it. However did you see me editing the page? I was only present on the talk page so you could do the rest. -- Bonaparte talk & contribs16:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You have edited Bayes' theorem in the past. There is at present an edit conflict in Bayes' theorem concerning examples. Shall we have an example about cookies or an example about a medical test? I wonder if you care to weigh in on this question. If not, no problem. Please respond, if you choose to do so, at talk:Bayes' theorem. Regards, Wile E. Heresiarch18:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. I am afraid my knowledge of Bayes' theorem is marginal at best. All I did in that article was put some periods and commas. You should ask Michael Hardy on board, he's an expert in this kind of stuff. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As you said earlier on your own user talk page, there is no talking behind people's backs on Wikipedia. It's not my intention to talk about Bonaparte behind his back, and looking at this talkpage it seems he already visits regularly, so when he sees this message he may respond with whatever he wants. It's also humourous to me that Bonaparte seems to think all of the messages he writes in Romanian are somehow private from me, because I know exactly what he's saying and it's not any less annoying and, to a certain extent, intimidating.
While I don't particularly appreciate the previous behaviours of Anittas, Dpotop, et alia, I must say that Bonaparte outdoes each of them by far. Mikkalai removed many personal attacks from him, and blocked him several times for continuing personal attacks despite warnings.
It is no secret that I am 16 years old. Nor is it a secret, or at least it's not intended to be, that I'm gay, or that I've Jewish heritage. But Bonaparte has treated each of these as if it's a scandal he's unearthed. I don't think my age is particularly relevant here, I think my arguments should be judged on their merits. Same goes for his attacks on me for sexual orientation and heritage (all of which were removed from the page by Mikkalai).
Now, in addition to all of that, he has recently discovered the page Requests for Adminship. He seems to think that since neither yourself nor Mikkalai would do everything he wished for, that he can create his own pet admin who will. When Ronline made it clear he would not abuse admin powers, Bonaparte soldiered ahead to find another "vote to buy", this time trying User:Alexander 007. But Alex declined the nomination. I wonder if he won't nominate Dpotop or Anittas next.
But what seems clear to me, above all else, is that he is determined to resolve this conflict in any way possible, with the single exception of a rational point-by-point debate. I have cited a few experts, even went so far as to seek personal advice from two (Donald Dyer I asked explicitly for help, and Valentina Iepuri contacted me without solcitation). Professor Dyer was very helpful, and thanks to him we now have materials at our disposal which he gave us permission to use in whatever way we want (since he holds the copyright).
But every time I've tried to initiate a real, fact-based discussion on the page, the result has been one of the following every time:
Ronline responds with good legitimate counterpoints, but when I respond to Ronline, the talkpage has already gotten so much longer that he never responds again.
Bonaparte responds, but instead of responding to the arguments I've put forward, he tells me he doesn't trust what I say because I have no credibility because I'm 16, or he tells me I'm wrong without any explanation, or he tells me that nobody else agrees with me, or he says I'm a vandal...
Anittas makes some response skirting the arguments, using it as an opportunity to try to ridicule me regarding homosexuality. Exaples of this include him saying things like "Why don't you like me, I'm not a girl", or even the time he posted a new section saying that he thought it would be a good way to get rid of some of the bad feelings if, since "we're all guys here", everybody told what sort of woman they liked most.
Anittas has been annoying at times and amusing at others, but it's been easy to ignore most of his personal attacks or think of witty responses which throw him off track. Ronline has been a breath of fresh air because he makes real attempts to discuss the issues and resolve the problems on the page with discussion.
But Bonaparte has become increasingly unbearable. He has not only been annoying, but at many times he has been offensive, hurtful, and even intimidating.
My reason for writing here is to ask you for advice. I feel I should be able to continue to participate in the ongoing conflict at Talk:Moldovan language without feeling threatened or harassed by Bonaparte, but at the same time when people have suggested I seek arbitration against him, I have been completely lost because I have never done it before it and it seems confusing. What do you suggest? Multzumiesc. --Node19:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Node ue. I am aware of the verbal abuse directed towards you by Anittas and Bonaparte. I learned the hard way that repeatedly telling people to stop does not work, so that drops out. Blocking people might not be a good idea, and did not work with him so far (Mikka tried). But asking for arbitration at this stange might be too early. I would suggest a request for comment (WP:RfC). I will fully support you on that one and help provide evidence (like the silly story he put on my talk page, which was surely his work if compared to similar message he posted earlier under his own account). Wonder what you think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, there is no need to write to me in "Russian slang" as above. I don't know for sure how widespread it is indeed in Moldova, but educated people try to avoid that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oleg nu prea înţeleg de ce acuzi toată românimea cu "voi românii sunteţi" etc. etc. etc.
Poate te consideri tu "moldovean" si ai tot dreptul să faci asta dar te rog pe viitor dacă este să acuzi, acuză individul în sine, nu un neam întreg. Nu de alta, dar ofensează. Constantzeanu23:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exact la toti romanii care participa pe acea pagina ma refer. Si la aia care se tin de prostii, si la aia care toleareaza acea purtare. Nu am prea vazut discutie constructiva pa acea pagina, si eu mai mult nu ma implic. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nu prea înţeleg ce înţelegi "se ţin de prostii" sau "tolerează acea purtare". Ai vrea ca românii "constructivi" să le dea peste bot la cei "neconstructivi"? În orice caz î-mi pare rău că gândeşti aşa. O zi bună. Constantzeanu00:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Coresi
Coresi este cel dintai care face apropierea dintre români si romani. Luca Stroici o afirma raspicat in 1593, transcriind Tatal nostru cu litere latine si insotindu-l cu explicatii privind originea romanilor. Scrierile istorice ale lui Ureche (1647), Miron Costin (1677) contin capitole speciale inchinate limbii romane si originii ei, iar Udriste Nasturel (1647) marsturiste ca dupa ce a descoperit ca latina este noua vadit inrudita...in minte si in inima nu mai purtam aproape nici un alt gand decat sa invat aceasta limba, noaptea, ziua fara incetare exersandu-ma". Am vazut cum i-ai raspuns si iti multumesc. Ai fost corect.-- Bonaparte talk20:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Scrie-mi te rog aici, sau altfel pe talk:Moldovan language. Eu sunt cam obosit sa primesc mesaje despre acel articol pe pagina mea tak. Sper sa intelegi.
Salut Oleg. Nu o schimb pentru ca face parte din imagine. ([[5]],[[6]], [[7]] "În ţările ortodoxe locul latinei era ţinut de slavonă şi deci se putea aplica aceeaşi teorie; şi de aceea zice Coresi, în epilogul evangheliarului, că a scris cartea pe româneşte ca "să înţeleagă rumânii cine-s (care sunt) creştini" şi citează din Apostolul Pavel: "În sfânta beserică mai bine a grăi cinci cuvente cu înţelese decât zece mii de cuvente neînţelese ÎN LIMBĂ STRĂINĂ"." ). Iarta-ma pentru intarziere. Poate vii si votezi si tu impotriva lui Node.-- Bonaparte talk19:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Salut Oleg. Ma gandesc ca deoarece romanii din moldova au suferit atat de mult acolo din cauza rusilor nu cumva au acum aceasta retinere din cauza unui sentiment de frica. Aceasta retinere nu se intalneste la romanii din romania unde de altfel minoritatea rusa fiind asa de mica lipseste cu desavarsire si nu are nici o influenta. Numai astfel imi explic o anumita retinere pe care voi o aveti de a nu va implica mai mult. Poate gresesc dar mi-ar placea sa stiu punctul tau de vedere. Multumesc de raspuns. Bonaparte talk16:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Eu nu ma implic prea mult din doua motive: (1) nu sunt prea interesat de acel articol, si de certurile de acolo. (2) Sa fiu direct, tu si Anittas nu stiti cum sa va purtati. Asta poate s-a schimbat de cand eu nu mai urmaresc evenimentele, dar eu am avut experiente neplacute cu voi doi, si eu nu am chef sa ma implic in nimic atata timp cat este purtare necivilizata. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Si cand am stat deoparte nu ai intervenit aproape deloc. Nu-ti reprosez nimic. Dar daca nu poti ajuta atunci macar nu pune piedica. Ti-au mai spus si altii: va ajutam dar nu suntem aici sa va facem treaba. La urma urmei voi ar trebui sa fiti interesati. Bonaparte talk08:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bonaparte, hai sa vorbim serios. Tu nu intelegi. Eu nu ti-am pus niciodata piedica. Daca ai fost atent, eu niciodata nu l-am suportat pe Mark in intentiile sale. Dovedeste-mi te rog daca nu esti de acord. Problema este ca nu ma pot asocia cu tiine si Anittas caci voi doi dati poporul Roman de rusine.
Ai dreptate ca nu m-am implicat mai mult, dar am incercat. Era imposibil de avut o discutie productiva. Era intransigenta din ambele parti, si tu nu ai stat chiar asa de o parte pe cat crezi.
Si fii atent. Tu nu te impici din cauza ca vreai sa ne ajuti pe noi, moldovenii. Asta tot este doar vorbaraie. Tu si Anittas va implicati pentru ca voi aveti o ura enorma fata de rusi, cate odata cu motive bune, dar cate o data asta e doar purtare irationala. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Draga Oleg, nu avem nici o ura fata de nimeni fii convins de acest lucru. Doar ca nu suportam minciuna, asta e alta poveste. Stiu ca faci si tu ce poti asta e, dar ar fi bine sa fii mai vizibil. Bonaparte talk19:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Uite de exemplu acum. Sunt 10 puncte de discutat (negociat) altele sunt considerate ca exista deja un consens. Totul i se datoreaza lui User:Jmabel. El a stat si a clasificat pe pagina de talk. Acum ai sansa sa-ti spui parerea la ultimele puncte ramase in discutie. Sigur ca pentru celelate 40 exista deja un consens. Daca vrei ti le pun aici sa le vezi si tu:
Factual contention exists
Do a significant number of linguists consider standard Moldovan not to be identical to standard Romanian?
If so, are any of those linguists neither from Moldovan nor of Moldovan ancestry?
Does the typical speech of any part of Moldova vary more from standard Romanian than is typical within Romania?
A five-phase "language shift" model has been proposed. Since that is complex and largely uncited, it is probably a matter of some contention. It would be great if people can agree that parts of it are uncontentious.
The Soviet authorities purpose in declaring the "Moldavian language" was to give the region its own identity separate from Romania.
Up until "just 80 years prior" to 1924—that is, up to 1864— "the language was usually written in Cyrillic." (and possibly contention over what "the language" and "usually" mean: does this refer just to this region or is it saying that was the practice everywhere?
There may be contentious aspects to the Romanizators and Originalists section; if so, could someone please replace this remark with a characterization of those disagreements.
Is there "a growing international recognition that Moldovan language is in fact Romanian"?
Our article seems to disagree with itself wither "about two thirds of Romanian-Moldovans" or 55% declared their native language to be "Romanian".
