This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Once you have put some material into Transfiguration Cathedral (Saint Petersburg), please list that article at WP:PNT. Thank you. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 14:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Heya. I've replied on my talk page --Michael Billington (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi IIMH- Just an FYI-- have you looked at your user page in Firefox? Your All my accounts section is walking all over your Babel box. -Eric talk 20:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Heyy, I noticed that you asked why the logo wasn't SVG-ified. There is an SVG version here: Image:Wikipedia-logo.svg. Cheers! Tkgd2007 (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I found this this graphic that you have uploaded, used a bit everywhere apparently to prove things as different as racial differences and patriarchy. Could you please provide any feedback? As far as I understood it is just an example of a series of "bell curve" about normal distribution but each curve doesn'trefer to anything specific. Am I correct? If not, can you please provide a bit of simple feedback? thanks --Dia^ (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for asking, I always try to be helpful. The general notability guideline says that an article is notable if it has been covered by reliable sources independent of the subject. A reference from your own website is helpful to validate information, but it can't assert notability. Notability can only be asserted by a site or magazine that operates totally independently, like gamespy or ign. It also has to be reliable, so it can't just be someone else's blog. See the policy on reliable sources and the policy against self-published sources. This is a tough standard for a lot of topics to meet, and a lot of non-notable articles exist for a long time without anybody noticing. Usually you need at least two references.
Actually, this site looks like it would meet the requirements. It mentions Europa Barborum, and even though I can't read Dutch it looks like it's a reliable source by wikipedia standards. If you can find one more, you might be okay. Two more and nobody can touch you. Scratch that. I think "member recensies" roughly translates to "user reviews", and so this would violate the policy on using self-published sources. This article will be tough. Randomran (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I have temporarily unblocked the range you are editing from so that you may create the account. Because of mass sockpuppets, it will have to be re-softblocked afterwards. Creol (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Blocked on Simple English Wikipedia. Darkspots (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The .svg image in the table on the right of the article comes from here, a template created for the article. User:Leolaursen edited this template on 14 July to make the picture a .svg. See this difference for how they did it. To find a template like this, look on the main article page and you will see something like this at at the top: ((EXAPMLE infobox)). The just type in Template:EXAMPLE infobox to the search box to see the template. Does this help? - tholly --Turnip-- 18:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Image:Crystal Clear app clock.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon))
to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Crystal Clear app clock.png|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sdrtirs (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello It Is Me Here, I have granted your account rollback in accordance with your request. Just remember that rollback should only be used for reverting vandalism, and that misuse of the tool (either by using them to revert good-faith edits or to revet-war) can lead to its removal. For practice, you may be interested in seeing Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 19:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#What's in a (ref) name?
If you put your refs in with ALREADY BROKEN <ref> tags... like <xref>
habitually FIRST, you can preview, and catch the errors as you make them. When one is proofed, remove the 'x' AND just keep on trucking. (I make lots of typos too... big fingers! Same trick works inside template coding in <Xincludeonly> && <Xnoinclude> block coding... just fix up before saving permanently) Cheers! // FrankB 19:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
--Gatoclass (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), you wrote:
I have seen and edited far more Wikipedia mathematics articles than all but a very small number of people—maybe five or six. I've seen this compmlaint expressed repeatedly, but I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone attempt to cite examples. You mentioned Lorentz transformation and special relativity. I'm not sure if you intended those to be examples of the "catch-22" you describe. (If you did, they certainly fail.) Some articles aren't very good, of course, and I've seen some really weird stuff, so I wouldn't be surprised if there really are math articles that can only be understood by those who already know everything in them, so maybe someone really can cite one. And there are many articles that lack suitable initial context setting in their early versions, but that's not the same thing.
I've seen many many cases of math articles where I did NOT know their material before I read them, and learned it from reading them. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Your claim was that they would be understood ONLY by those who already know the material. That is clearly NOT true of the article titled Lucas–Lehmer primality test; it looks like something a good high-school student would understand. If I write something that can be understood by a broad audience of professional mathematicians who are NOT alread familiar with what I'm writing about, often I'd consider it a success, and CERTAINLY I would be innocent of the charge of writing something that would be understood only by those who already know the material. It may be true in SOME cases that it can be re-written to make it clear to most 6th-graders, but it is still not the case that it would be understood ONLY by those who already know the material.
Look, you need to be clear about something. Is your complaint
Which is it? Now perhaps it could be both. But you should not keep changing it back and forth like this. You say "Articles are written so that ONLY those who already know it all can understand them." Then when asked for an example, you point to one and change your complaint: "This is not written so that lay readers can understand it." Possibly true, but it's a DIFFERENT thing from what you said initially and it does not support your initial complaint. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Please note: I did not write the opening paragraph in estimation of covariance matrices that got attributed to me. I have now changed it back to the paragraph I wrote when I initially started the article. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Good work on converting PNGs to SVGs on the letter articles, such as N. Please be careful not to blow up the page if the "native" size of the SVG is much larger than the PNG it is replacing, though; I've found specifying an output size of 64x64px in the image link works well. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 16:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), you wrote:
I have seen and edited far more Wikipedia mathematics articles than all but a very small number of people—maybe five or six. I've seen this compmlaint expressed repeatedly, but I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone attempt to cite examples. You mentioned Lorentz transformation and special relativity. I'm not sure if you intended those to be examples of the "catch-22" you describe. (If you did, they certainly fail.) Some articles aren't very good, of course, and I've seen some really weird stuff, so I wouldn't be surprised if there really are math articles that can only be understood by those who already know everything in them, so maybe someone really can cite one. And there are many articles that lack suitable initial context setting in their early versions, but that's not the same thing.
I've seen many many cases of math articles where I did NOT know their material before I read them, and learned it from reading them. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Your claim was that they would be understood ONLY by those who already know the material. That is clearly NOT true of the article titled Lucas–Lehmer primality test; it looks like something a good high-school student would understand. If I write something that can be understood by a broad audience of professional mathematicians who are NOT alread familiar with what I'm writing about, often I'd consider it a success, and CERTAINLY I would be innocent of the charge of writing something that would be understood only by those who already know the material. It may be true in SOME cases that it can be re-written to make it clear to most 6th-graders, but it is still not the case that it would be understood ONLY by those who already know the material.
Look, you need to be clear about something. Is your complaint
Which is it? Now perhaps it could be both. But you should not keep changing it back and forth like this. You say "Articles are written so that ONLY those who already know it all can understand them." Then when asked for an example, you point to one and change your complaint: "This is not written so that lay readers can understand it." Possibly true, but it's a DIFFERENT thing from what you said initially and it does not support your initial complaint. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Please note: I did not write the opening paragraph in estimation of covariance matrices that got attributed to me. I have now changed it back to the paragraph I wrote when I initially started the article. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Good work on converting PNGs to SVGs on the letter articles, such as N. Please be careful not to blow up the page if the "native" size of the SVG is much larger than the PNG it is replacing, though; I've found specifying an output size of 64x64px in the image link works well. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 16:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully request that you withdraw. People with less than 2500 edits or so simply do not pass RfAs. Let me know if you're interested. If you gain more experience in different areas, you can always come back to RfA later. Enigma message 15:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Even though I've opposed your RfA and argued against several votes, I really do not dislike you as an editor. You're clearly on the right road and I'd bet a lot of money on you passing next time round in a few months. I hope you understand my concerns with my oppose, although I know that it could come across kinda nit-picky. I'm developing set RfA criteria for future use to prevent this happening again. Best of luck, you seem to be obtaining a fair amount of support now, and if you have any queries about using Wikipedia whilst your RfA is still running or after it ends, please do not hesitate to contact me. Kind regards —CyclonenimT@lk? 17:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello "It Is Me Here", and greetings for trying to implement SVG images to Wikipedia. Unfortunately your recent edits at Template:Chess diagram and Template:Chess diagram small had undesired side-effects and broke down some functionalities, as described at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess#problem_with_captions_in_small_diagrams. So I would suggest the following:
SyG (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
(({34))}
on top and below them - I thought those were mistakes as they showed up on the actual template page and not just in the code, so I removed them as well as SVGifying. Try replacing the PNGs with SVGs but keeping the apparently superfluous numbers in brace brackets in place. I rolled back my edits to the other templates (basically, everything at Template:Chess diagram/doc) too. It Is Me Here (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Dear It Is Me Here,
Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.
Stifle (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)