User talk:Salix alba/Archive 6

Happy Holidays

... to you, and I want to thank you and your fellow mentors for all the work you have done supporting Mattisse this year. --JN466 15:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Have a good festive season yourself.--Salix (talk): 20:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I second this and also want to thank you for your kindness in sticking by me and helping me. I am trying very hard to live up to your expectations. Best wishes for a wonderful New Year! Warmest regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. it does feel like I've done that much though. Have a good year, be good! --Salix (talk): 20:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing irrelevancies from Talk pages

Re removing a remark from the Talk:NaN page: Wikipedia guidelines say:

Editing -- or even removing -- others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

...

• Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection How to use article talk pages).

My (perhaps incorrect) judgement was that this material was not relevant to improving the article. --macrakis (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Old sandbox

Hi, Salix. While following backlinks to a page I was working on, I noticed that you have an old sandbox page at User:Pfafrich/Sandbox2 that you haven't worked on since 2006. I was wondering if you still wanted to keep this, or if perhaps it should be deleted? Not a big thing, but I thought I would ask. --RL0919 (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I don't need it any more. I've now deleted it. --Salix (talk): 08:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Response

I'm quickly responding to your post on Mattisse's talk here, just to keep the matters focussed at hand hand. I wasn't referring to you when I talked about a mentor questioning the block; requesting some more information, as you initially did, was more than appropriate, I agree. However, Philcha continued to question it, requesting diffs etc, even after the socks were identified, and the evidence easily accessible and fairly clear cut - to me, at least, and apparently to you and others too!! e.g. [1][2] --Slp1 (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats fine. --Salix (talk): 18:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Socks

I don't want to continue to clutter Risker's page when she's stated several times that she needs more time. But, please note that Mattisse has selectively admitted to socks—nowhere near the full list of verified socks. I realize her controlling the SA/anime socks is in dispute (we may have inadvertently uncovered a different sock drawer), but she has avoided admitting to an obvious one that casts her in a particularily poor light, Charles Rodriguez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I do respect your opinion and value your input, but you're not doing Mattisse any favors by misrepresenting her "admission". --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

My e-mail response to the e-mail you sent me bounced back, with the message "does not like recipient". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Try again, I've fixed to to the correct email now. --Salix (talk): 18:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Returned again ... I'm heading out for the afternoon now, will try to deal with it later ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Floods

Hi there Salix, just to let you know I declined the proposed deletion tag for this article because an editor protested its deletion on the talk page (as you saw yourself). If anyone objects to deletion in good faith then it's ineligible for PROD. An AfD might be a good idea, however, where the article might be deleted or redirected to flood. This is just a notice, thanks. -- Atama頭 21:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Project Page for CoMiFin

Hi Salix,

We're involved in a European project for protection of critical infrastructure. I had created a wikipedia entry for the project, however, it was deleted due to a lack of traffic. This project is now entering an increased period of activity and I'd appreciate a re-instating of the page so that we can work on it further. I can recreate the page if necessary but I don't want to do so if it faces imminent deletion. Are there particular steps an entry can do to avoid this? The original page was under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoMiFin Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sionnach (talk • contribs) 17:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Closed AfD missing a bit

Just a heads up that this AfD had a couple of very similar connected articles being nominated under the same rationale. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I saw those, but missed that they were included in the same AfD. Now deleted.--Salix (talk): 23:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:P. D. Q. Bach#Proposed merger from Lasso d'amore

Following on from the Tromboon afd, I've proposed that the Lasso d'amore article is treated in the same way and am contacting all four other !voters from the afd.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Periodicals

First, it should be noted that whether they were obscure or not, they were among those listed in the Gale Directory of Publications and Broadcast Media or in a global directory of international newspapers in English. Yes, I did start with the global sources, not US-UK-etc, because, frankly, those nations are easier to start with, having fewer English-language periodicals. We do have a continuing problem with having a disturbingly obvious bias toward the major English speaking countries. As a result, we have disproprortionately poor coverage of a lot of the rest of the world, and make it harder for individuals who might have an interest in developing content related to the smaller countries to even know what sources are available for those less often discussed regions. It has been pointed out to me that some of the links were also of an advertising nature, which may well be true. Those were the official sites of the publishers, which I guess qualifies to some as advertising - I honestly hadn't considered that. I chose them because they were also the ones which generally gave the best description of the type of content they dealt with. The lists in the beginning were and are being created as "first-drafts", with greater organization, structure, and improved links to follow, once I have an idea what all is out there and am better able to organize them on the basis of that knowledge. John Carter (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

One example

Since you said you hadn't seen one good example of the protection of BLP done by pending changes, I thought I would point out one, even I don't expect it to change your mind necessarily!

For years, articles related to a sailing club attached to a Wisconsin University have been edited to include libellous accusations about living people. If you take a look at the history of Wisconsin Hoofers, for example, you will see that every month or so different IP addresses or unconfirmed editors make BLP violating edits on the page. Blocks don't work since the IPs change, semi-protection has been used but it runs out eventually, and there are also good edits from IPs or unconfirmed editors when the page is unprotected. I was on a bit of a break when the last set of edits happened [3] (deleted revisions, but as an admin you can see them) and the BLP violation accusing a named person of criminal activity, remained in the article for more than a week before another IP removed them. I suddenly thought of trying pending changes on the article. It seems that the person(s) behind the edits realized that their game was up permanently, since their next edit was been to attack me for my actions.[4].

Just one example, but I think Pending Changes is a perfect tool for this kind of low-traffic page; it stops the libel, puts off the libellous editors and doesn't stop new editors from contributing usefully. Thought you might be interested. --Slp1 (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like it would be a case for page protection. To me it seems flagged revisions are best compared to page protection, kind of like protected pages where an anon can make a test edit. My fear would be that rather than converting protected pages to flagged revisions, it would be more likely be used to convert normal pages to flagged revision.--Salix (talk): 22:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Page protection was tried on several occasions, but the pages involved would need be protected indefinitely since this has been going on for years, with offending edits only happening once every month or so. In the meantime, with page protection, no IPs or unconfirmed editors could edit at all. My hope is that the pending changes will lead these guys to give up their campaign on WP, since they won't even get their jollies of seeing the edits last hours or days, while IPs are free to edit, and the BLP vios never appear to the public. Anyway, yes, I agree that moving from page protection to pending changes would be good where it would work, but that's not everywhere. In my mind there's a clear place for pending changes in protecting BLPs, especially in more out of the way articles.--Slp1 (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes

Hey User:Salix!

I was wondering if there were anything that might be done to alleviate your concerns that PC may be unjustified? If there are possibly any changes to the implementation or the guidelines that may make it more palatable. If so, feel free to comment: Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Straw_poll#About_.22this_thing_defaulting_to_recognizing_the_significant_majority_vote_as_sufficient.22 Thanks! BigK HeX (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Plimpton 322

Richard, Thanks very much for entering the discussion and deleting the section on mathematical reconciliation. I was puzzled that a section like that was not there already, and now mystified that anyone should want to excise it altogether. In contrast, the author of one of the leading histories of mathematics in the USA writes privately: Your reasoning here is excellent. I feel I ought to have noticed this connection before, but somehow I missed it. Thus, it appears that even if Plimpton 322 is about problems in algebra or Diophantine equations specifically, the connection with Pythagorean triples is quite immediate. And, of course, the argument that shows how to generate all primitive Pythagorean triples in the form (m^2 - n^2)^2 + (2mn)^2 = (m^2 + n^2)^2 works off the same idea of factoring the difference of two squares.

Now, you are an advocate of contacting academics, so just possibly you might want to ask around here among your academic contacts. At the moment, your policy is to guarantee that people go on missing a connection that, once seen, they feel they ought to have noticed. I know that rules are rules, but, with all due respect, might I suggest that you are cutting against the spirit of Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:Plimpton_322#Pythagorean_triple.--Salix (talk): 06:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard, Again, very many thanks for those actions. It is very good of you to go to so much trouble for the cause. By including that quotation from the leading historian, do you not rather give the game away, as he is pointing out the mathematical link between the interpretations that somehow cannot be named, although all it amounts to is the trick of difference of squares. Now, I can see that your readers might indeed have difficulty verifying difference of squares, because Wikipedia's own article Difference of squares is flagged and open to challenge. In consistency with the policy to which you are adhering, should not Difference of squares actually be excised. If somehow it is acceptable to keep it up, what is actually the problem you have with the section on mathematical reconciliation? What exactly is it there that readers are going to have difficulty verifying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard, Further thanks for revealing how seriously misguided you were in reading the excised section. This goes a long way to helping me understand how Wikipedia operates. I have seldom seen such a complete travesty of what a person has written. Could you possibly have the good grace to also acknowledge publically that I never wrote anything of the kind, indeed that I inserted a disclaimer to guard against misreading of just that kind? I am unhappy that you have shown yourself up in this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion at Underworld

I have closed the discussion to merge Underworld to Hell; there was no consensus for that merger. I have started a new discussion. I propose that List of underworlds and List of underworld rulers be merged to Underworld. Your comments are welcome at Talk:Underworld#Merge from lists. Cnilep (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing a notice t the conclusion of a discussion on the deletion of an article.

You indicated that the discussion on the deletion of the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wald's_maximin_model is over. Can you please delete the notice in the article that the article is considered for deletion. Thanks, Sniedo (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Donald L. Voils' interpretation of Plimpton 322

Information on DLV has been added at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Plimpton_322>, complete with references and sources. Apparently earlier attempts to trace DLV's work failed, but DLV himself was at Florida Atlantic University as late as Fall, 2009.

Notice that the main Wikipedia article evinces a certain skewing of the record as regards Bruins, Voils and Buck. Is there perhaps a Wikipedia sin of original research by omission? This is hardly fair to Robson who graciously acknowledges Bruins and shows interest in finding out more about Voils.

By the bye, you might try to look out Wilbur Knorr's article in the Monthly in 1998 for some further remarks about solving quadratics in the Old Babylonian mathematics and life on the square grid. Knorr superimposes the traditional figures for Elements II.9, 10 to notice a figure that goes with the Old Babylonian approach to a certain quadratic. Since both figures are drawing on a square (or rectangular) grid, the solution technique clearly can at least be visualised there. Euclid sees in his figures two right triangles sharing a common hypotenuse and his demonstrations are based on this. Rather startlingly, this hypotenuse is also one of the construction lines in Euclid's Windmill demonstration of Elements I.47, the first appearance of the Pythagorean proposition in the Euclidean Elements.

It is entirely possible for people to be looking at what is essentially the same figure, but picking out different features. But apparently in your world, if we say it is essentially the same figure, we are saying that everyone places the same emphasis on it. However, in my experience, very few people notice that that shared hypotenuse in Elements II.9, 10 is a construction line in Elements I.47. So, I would never make any inference on what people know or understand based on formal similarities.

In this instance, there are alternative dissection arguments. So, it might be entirely possible to be familiar with one approach, but not the other. For all that we might think the Pythagorean rule significant, it could still slip between the cracks. That is why I mentioned BM13901, on the problem of two squares where the areas are known in sum together with the sum or difference of the sides. Two squares where the areas are known in sum sounds like part of the Pythagorean rule. In a Chinese version in Jiu Zhang Suan Shu, Problem IX.11, that is indeed what seems to be in play. But you do not have to work it that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 (talk) 05:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Its certainly good that you have found some additional references. I do have a slight concern that your straying a little from the precise topic which is Plimpton 322 to a more general question of Babylonian mathematics. Being an encyclopaedia rather than a journal wikipedia articles focus on what is known about a single topic rather than using the topic as the starting point for more general thesis. Euclid and Jiu Zhang Suan Shu are certainly interesting but they look they are getting off topic.

BTW you might like look a bit at Wikipedia:FAQ/Editing. In you posts you are adding line breaks in the middle of paragraphs. Its convention to just let the lines run on so they wrap automatically. Also if you want to make a link to a page use [[Plimpton 322]] rather than pasting the full url. And finally please sign you posts on talk pages using --~~~~~ (there is a button for this in the edit box) so we can keep trak of who wrote what.--Salix (talk): 08:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard, Please, those references were there all along; and I confined my remarks the first time round to two, then three, brief paragraphs precisely so as not to upset the balance of Plimpton 322, badly written as it currently is. Two of those paragraphs were entirely mathematical, where, however, the relevant Wikipedia entries Difference of squares and Pythagorean triples are flagged, but have not been removed. The third paragraph, added in discussion with David Eppstein, specifically countered reading into the mathematics anything about what the Babylonians may or may not have done. But you would not have it that way: I had to be saying something about the Babylonians. You do not seem yet to have retracted that calumny.

It is you who invite the cross-cultural comparsions to point up just how much you have it wrong. As for straying more widely into Babylonian mathematics, recall that that is actually part of Robson's explicitly stated aim in Robson (2001), to recontextualise Plimpston 322 as part of a larger literature of old Babylonian mathematical texts, a key point that has gone missing in the main article Plimpton 322.

As it stands, Plimpton 322 reads like a puff-piece for Robson, with you and others writing and behaving like accolytes at a shrine. I doubt if that is fair to Robson's standing and reputation.

I appreciate the tips on editing in Wikipedia, but, please forgive me, I have no great wish to become too involved in Wikipedia. It is a customary part of scholarly discussion of interpretations to include a section on possible reconciliation qua interpretations. Noticing that was missing in Plimpton 322, I thought only to help out with a stub. The rest is history ... it does not encourage me to get further involved beyond clearly up this particular issue.

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Nonce

Can you tell me when that template was created? Thanks. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

21:09, 23 June 2010 by User:Stevertigo.--Salix (talk): 07:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

early history of logarithms

Hi, can I ask you for a little help? In the discussion of the early contributions of this Indian mathematician Virasena to logarithms, someone put a tag:

He described various relations using this operation as well as working with logarithms in base 3 (trakacheda) and base 4 (caturthacheda).

I don't find this overly imprecise, but I wouldn't simply remove the which tag. Since you seem(ed) to have access to the mentioned references, could you give a more concise (similarly short) summary of the Virasena's work? Thank you! I'm trying to bring the article to GAC soon... Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The second reference[5] list a number of formula, the typography is terrible but we seem to have log(m/n)=log(m)-log(n); log(x^2)=2 log(x); log(log x^2)=log(2 log(x))=log(2)+log(log(x))=1+log(log(x)) (logs are in base 2); if B=a^a then log(B)=a log(a), log(log(b))=log(a)+log(log(a)). And a few more which don't make a lot of sense.--Salix (talk): 22:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine! I edited it accordingly. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

LawesMattius and similar sockpuppets

I suspect that LawesMattius is a sockpuppet of Mattisse. Both names are derivatives of the common name Matthew, with Mattius being the Latin name and Mattisse I believe the French. One of the Lawes sockpuppets posted on Mattisse's page saying "Free Mattisse!" - Cyborg Ninja 00:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible, LawesMattius (talk · contribs) could also be her grandson, the edit seems a bit juvenile for her. If she is around she be keeping a very low profile.--Salix (talk): 06:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Magic Words

Is it possible to "create" magic words? --A Word Of Advice From A Beast: Don't Be Silly, Wrap Your Willy! 20:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

See Help:Magic words I don't think it possible to create new one unless you are a developer and have access to the code. You could try WP:VPT.--Salix (talk): 21:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Singular

Thanks for your advice. I've downloaded the program. What command do I give it so that it quotients the whole polynomial ring by a certain ideal? Do I just enter it by hand until I have sufficiently high order terms? Thanks again for the tip. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to work. I typed ring r1=0,(x,y),ds; as is suggested here. Then I typed ideal id1=1,x,y,x2,xy,y2,x3,x2y,xy2,y3; and ideal id2=x,y2. Then I typed quotient(id1,id2) and it retuned 1! The answer should be 1,y. I followed the example here and it came back to say that Milnor(f) was not defined. I really don't understand. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've really not used the program much, just know a few people who have. You could try asking on their forum. The other software I've heardabout, but never used is Macaulay2.--Salix (talk): 10:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I finally got it working using this page of the manual. It seems you have to give it lots of information before it can work. For example

ring r = 0, (x,y), ds;

poly f = x3 + y3;

ideal J = jacob(f);

J = groebner(J);

ideal K = kbase(J);

K;

K[1] = xy

K[2] = y

K[2] = x

K[1] = 1

tells it we have a ring of characteristic zero, with variables x and y, and tells it how to order the monomials. We define a polynomial ƒ(x,y) = x³ + y³. We define an ideal, J, to be the Jacobian ideal (a.k.a. the gradient ideal). We put J into a Groebner basis. Then we define an ideal K to be the quotient of the whole polynomial ring by J. Then we list the elements of K. Thus:

$\mathbb {R} [x,y]/\langle x^{2},y^{2}\rangle \cong \mathbb {R} \langle 1,x,y,xy\rangle .$

I'll take a look at Macaulay2 now. Thanks again for the advice. — Fly by Night (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mridu

My article was deleted on the basis of A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content) I would like contest the deletion.

The page was created after reviewing some autobiographies at Shamit Kachru, Eva Silverstein, Shamita Das Dasgupta. Kindly elaborate on things missing in my article.

The article has been recreated. Kindly reply at its Talk page. I assure you I'd update/remove the article myself once I know the reason of doing so.

Mridubhattacharya (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

updated my talk page

Taking the first of these comparisons: Shamit Kachru is an award-winning physicist and an expert in string theory and quantum field theory, he has made central contributions to the study of compactifications of string theory from ten to four dimensions, has won the ACIPA Outstanding Young Physicist Prize. This makes a claim to a notable achievements. There was no such claim on Mridu where the list of things done (making the site search engine friendly, creating webmaster accounts in various search engines, mainly Google, Yahoo, Bing; creating automated RSS feed (if applicable); planning of URL rewriting patterns creating search engine sitemaps (xml files); create Google Analytics account and helping the developer implement the code; create title & metadata of top level key-pages of the website including the home page.) These are what I would expect of any professional in the industry. There is nothing beyond that, say published articles or papers (not blogs) frequent references by new sources, major national awards.--Salix (talk): 09:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks got your point and would comeback with some actual work done. Mridubhattacharya (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I start a new page at Special:MyPage/Mridu, and ask other editors to help me on this, please note that this is not a self promo and that if it doesn't turned out to be fruitful, can be removed. Mridubhattacharya (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You can create a draft at User:Mridubhattacharya/Mridu but please read Wikipedia:Notability (people) first. The draft would not be immune from deletion if it was found that it did not meet the notability guidelines. Its worth looking at Wikipedia:Articles for creation which can help you get the article upto standard.--Salix (talk): 09:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Gallery rendering.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Gallery rendering.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

About List of Jains

Hi there User:Salix alba! Please reconsider your decision to remove the indefinite pending changes setting on that article. It's been full of tripe for more than a year now. Opening the article up is definitely not going to help. Please reply on my page - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 17:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I've left pending changes on. Its just the block of new and unregistered users which I've remove. --Salix (talk): 17:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, alright then! - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 19:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Unicode blocks

Hi, I appreciate your edits in these. Could you add "as of Unicode version 6.0" or alike, where & when appropriate? I think that would greatly improve the quality of a Wiki-page. -DePiep (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes done. Now all I need to do is find a font which renders them! --Salix (talk): 21:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Nah, just wait. 2015. It's just that WP is OK before. -DePiep (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Salix alba. I notice that you recently contributed to a debate at Talk: Greek love. The article was nominated for deletion almost a week ago and you will need to act soon if you are to vote there. Thanks. McZeus (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Mhiji

Hi salix. I am noticing some bizarre behaviour from this user. The page blanking after every message regarding problematic edits is bad enough, but they are messages about the same problems! Maybe another stern word? (I'm not sure of the intricacies of the edits in question, but they seem to be frequent.) Thanks, The Interior(Talk) 00:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

PSSM talk page deletion

Thank you for restoring the Talk:Principles and Standards for School Mathematics page. The deletion was by accident. I had a little bit of trouble loading the page and at some point, I must have edited it incorrectly without noticing. --seberle (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep I had half a feeling it was an accidental thing.--Salix (talk): 02:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thanks for your on-going help at the maths reference desk, and especially for helping me name my surface. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Mathematical films

Category:Mathematical films, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Elliptic coords.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Elliptic coords.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Fukuoka topic

Hi.

I noticed your run in with Macropneuma and his comments tell you to "back off" away from his page on Masanobu Fukuoka.

Would you be interested in support me in a RfC (Refer for Comment) regarding his user conduct? Reading the page, it appears to require two individuals to do so.

I am really concerned because the topic was unreadable and uneditable by others. Jase has obviously become territorial about it. It is littered with blog posts and mailing list references and the formatting so convoluted.

Thank you. --Iyo-farm 14:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I would. There is a big case of WP:OWN here, I've considered doing the same myself, but had other things to do. --Salix (talk): 18:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's see how he responds and if he is willing and capable of cooperating.

I am pretty much slowing down now. There is more work to be done but I think the topic has now been kicked into a bit better shape. I agree with Jase about adding 'greening deserts' but cannot find the references right now and am pretty exhausted by having to cut my way throw so much crap. I don't know how much he actually achieved in the real world. There seems to have been a flurry of interest in the 80s/90s but it appears to me to have died down now and other more conventionally modern forms taken over.

Sadly, one of the problems with Fukuoka is that he has been deified quite so much that it is difficult to find the facts from under the romanticisms. DItto, the problems of the Wikipedia topic have spread far and wide like weeds all across the internet. --Iyo-farm (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Salix, thanks for correcting that duplicate citation on the Fukuoka page. I hadn't noticed it was already in the citations, which makes me wonder why it's duplicated in the second 'References' section. In any case, thanks for picking it up. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ian P.

Salix, I think we need to invest some time in Ian's article. As it stands, it runs a great risk of being spanked by templates. For example: there are no in-line citations. Secondly, the article reads like an obituary. The last thing we want to see is his article being snipped at. It's far too late for me to do anything now; I should have been in bed four hours ago. I'll take a look tomorrow. In the meantime, if you get a chance, could you make a few changes? All the best. — Fly by Night (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Any advice?

I see you've resumed doing some periodic edits of Masanobu Fukuoka and you've read at least some parts of the talk page. Do you have any advice on how to deal with Macropneuma? Every time someone challenges one of his edits he starts making filibustering posts on the talk page with somewhat difficult-to-follow grammar and filled with accusations of POV and personal attacks. I've tried for some time to get him to explain his reasoning on a few things but he doesn't seem willing to do so and keeps throwing around various other wikilinks.

My patience and ability to AGF is running out. Do you have any suggestions for how we might be able to achieve a more productive environment? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup has been appealed to ArbCom

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, thought you might be interested -Aquib (talk) 05:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85 cleanup: article stubbing

Hello. You are invited to take part in this vote concerning the clean-up effort in connectuion with Jagged 85's RFC/U. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Venn Diagrams

Hi, You added this revision [6] Who is Smith? Is your original function correct when compared to the current one? (note that current is 2^(ix) whereas yours was (2^i)x Pod (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure who Smith is i got the information from [7] but I've not read the original book. The formula in that paper is $sin(2^{i}x) \over 2^{i}$ which makes mathematical sense.--Salix (talk): 16:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Maths rating small listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Maths rating small. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Maths rating small redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Kumioko (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

A nice gestation period

About 9 months ago, you made a couple of edits to one of my .js pages. I don't believe I ever realized it (very extended wikibreak), so I just wanted to drop you a line to say thanks. Nice catch, I had no idea.

My thanks!

~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mike Gallagher (guitarist)

The article Mike Gallagher (guitarist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't appear to meet the bio criteria as a musician in WP:MUSICBIO

Admittedly it's borderline because of the TV stuff, but no source to show it and it doesn't appear to be theme music, or otherwise notable. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Life agars

Belated thanks for your reply on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2011 May 17#Life density. I got way behind on my watchlist. —Tamfang (talk) 07:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

MathJax

Hey Salix, I hope you're doing well. What's the deal with this MathJax? I went to the page you linked to. It sounded very interesting; but a bit too technically.

• What do I need to do to start to use it?
• How do I do what you were just about to suggest that I do to start using it?
• Do I just enter normal LaTeX commands, or is there a special syntax?

Thanks for the link. I look forward to trying it out for myself. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I went down the route of installing the MathJax fonts on home machine the simplest is to add

mathJax={}; mathJax.fontDir="http://cdn.mathjax.org/mathjax/latest/fonts";
importScript('User:Nageh/mathJax.js');

to your Special:MyPage/vector.js.

Then switch the option for Math to "Leave it as TeX" in your Preferences - Appearance tab.

The sit back an enjoy a nicer looking wikipedia.--Salix (talk): 21:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Internet Explorer 9

Mozilla Firefox

Google Chrome

Right, I think I've just done what you told me to do. I thought I'd test it here. Okay. Given two submanifolds $U\subset W$ and $V\subset W$, we say that that $U$ and $V$ are transverse at $p\in U\cap V$, written $U\pitchfork V$ at $p$, if the vector sum $T_{p}U+T_{p}V=T_{p}W.$ Bloody hell, it looks miles better! One thing I noticed too was that when I misspelled pitchfork and wrote <math>\pithfork</math> it highlighted the incorrect command instead of spamming the screen with error messages. You're an absolute star Salix; thanks ever so much for the tip! — Fly by Night (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Problem

Hello, it's me again. I've just updated a subsection of an article and it looked great, using Google Chrome. Just to test I opened IE9 and it looked just like it used to do, some was far too bold and big, while certain parts were in a hybrid non-LaTeX, non-HTML font. Firefox was the same.I know that they're all in slightly f=different zoom settings, but just click to enlarge them. The superscript asterisk is a real problem in the last sentences for IE9 and MFF. What do you think the problem is? — Fly by Night (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've worked it out

I've worked out the problem. That code that we've entered into our vector files on;y changes the way that we see the TeX in our browser. I noticed that in Google, a little box appears in the bottom right that flashes up code while the page renders. Then all the LaTeX looks lovely. The problem with IE9 and MFF is that my password isn't saved on those, so I wasn't logged in. Those screen shots are what anyone without that code in vector.js would see. Its seems a real shame; but unless others use it, we'll be seeing what others don't see. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe one day if enough people start using MathJax then the devs might switch it on for IP's. It still early days yet and building a critical mass of people to test it.--Salix (talk): 22:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's absolutely brilliant. I was really, really impressed. It's the finer details that mean so much in terms of quality. Like I mentioned, when it shows the specific command that's wrong instead of showing a general error. My LaTeX editor doesn't even do that! Although, I don't think it's just IPs, it's everyone. If you don't have the code in the vector.js and you don't have the preference set as you told me, then it'll turn out very different. I think it's a real no-brainer. Where do I sign ;-) — Fly by Night (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

MathJax Discussion

I've tried to start a discussion on the Wiki maths project about MathJax and it's future use. I thought you might be interested. Please see here. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Software bug in MathJax

Please see this discussion. MathJax plus David Eppstein's suggestion could potentially solve a problem that's plagued Wikipedia for more than eight years, but see the subsection titled "Serious software bug". If the bug can be easily fixed, we could be well on our way to solving this ancient problem, but if not, that's a major obstacle. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see that you're not the one who introduced the software; you're merely the person who introduced someone to the software. As Emily Litella would say.... Michael Hardy (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Sorry for not doing it so long. Thank you! You've lead to me to the right place. We now have B+ as well. Once again, thanks a lot!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Remind me what it was I did.--Salix (talk): 20:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

On your WP sub's talk page here, you've directed me to the right place for me to learn how to create Bplus-class articles for our WP, remember? That's it--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	To say thanks for dealing with hostility on my talk page with calm, and sensible suggestions. You always seem to face hostility with calm and friendliness. Just to let you now that it doesn't go unnoticed. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edit of West Hartlepool War Memorial 12 July 2011

Hullo.

The idea of what is 'too long' as here stated is probably relevant given the essentially local character of any particular war memorial. The wider issues remain where there are national and international connections and the principal purpose of the form in which this article has been edited by myself (as is made clear I hope in the Talk page where you could have had your say before editing if you had wished but it seems you did not choose to do so) was, rightly or wrongly of course, to make clear that what is never in the case of any war memorial whasoever within the United Kingdom generally recognized in respect of such a possibility should be made somewhat clear, if not entirely so, here. You and others may wish to believe this is the wrong way to have done it. Do you recommend that as the person in effect responsible for all this text I should either create a new article in Wikipedia or write a book? It would not be easy and you do not state this as your own 'POV' (point of view?), that which would have made your edit rather more courteous Sir!

In the meantime I must admit that you certainly have a point and that the article is now much easier for anybody to read, given that other people have other things to do, and perhaps wish to concentrate on the war memorial in question (which incidentally was no longer given its historical name in relation to the 'Hartlepools' anywhere on the web until this article first appeared, with this historic name still not used anywhere elsewhere so far as I know).

I confirm what I have said to lots of people lots of times, that like wars themselves it surely remains to be seen how all this complicated matter turns out at a European level, if at all. I was never a soldier myself and I sometimes wonder what it has to do with me, but it seems I have become for the time being at least embroiled.

PS I have now read a further comment at the start of the article as follows, 'This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles and using this article for a summary of the key points of the subject. (July 2011)' Given that this request clearly relates to myself, can you perhaps explain to myself (who is admittedly rather incompetent so far as the website and Wikipedia are concerned) exactly what may be meant by 'using this article for a summary of the key points of the subject' (presumably as contained in the 'sub-articles', whatever these may be)? Does this mean the creation of a new article or articles related to the present one in the form suggested? Thank you if you can spare the time to resolve this issue so far as I am concerned.

PPS I have now at last done what I should have done in the first place, had a look at the definition within this website of summary. I think I now understand what all this actually means, but I am a little confused as to whether the phrase 'this article' means that the summary should necessarily be under the title 'West Hartlepool War Memorial' when what is in question if sub-articles are prepared is clearly war memorials in general. Do you have any suggestions on this particular point? Furthermore are you fully aware that what is in question is indeed a national and international issue? It was the possible wide implication of what might be said under a different sort of title that encouraged me to put it all under 'West Hartlepool War Memorial' as I am sure you will appreciate when I make clear that it includes the arguably questionable actions and decisions of not only local authorities but the Charity Commission and the Administrative Court over many years, together with central government, further to actions by myself in relation to 'listed buildings' and UK First World War memorials in general (possibly a highly controvesial issue from both the historical point of view and that of our present-day ceremonies and those held elsewhere in Europe, east and west, together with their own memorials). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.165.118 (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.165.118 (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter,

Wikipedia has a lot of good advice on what makes a good article. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style is the core reference for what should go in an article and what should be left out. Wikipedia:Writing better articles is also worth looking at. One thing you particularly lookout for is Wikipedia:No original research wikipedia aims to be as neutral as possible and base everything on good sources and avoid Synthesis, constructing your own hypothesis for different sources.

You do want to give the article a Lead section of two or three short paragraphs. In the case of the West Hartlepool War Memorial a lot could be done to make it more concise.--Salix (talk): 20:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Salix,

While I note everything you say in other respects and shall be considering it carefully, I am afraid that I myself can only understand the article Wikipedia:No original research as quoted by yourself as indistinguishable (in practical terms at least in matters such as this) to the definition of Evidence provided elsewhere. While this 'evidence' I hope can be provided by myself if anyone requests it on the relevant talk page in West Hartlepool War Memorial I am afraid that there is much else within Wikipedia which may be said to relate to this matter where this is, or was, not the case. May I remind you in this respect that the only reason why (rightly or wrongly I admit) I decided to proceed with this article when my original attempt to explain the issue under Hartlepool was transferred by some other unidentified person to West Hartlepool War Memorial was I am afraid the entirely meaningless reference under 'History' in Hartlepool to 'Victory Square' (I refer to this as meaningless in the sense that what was in question was only part of the war memorial as created by the West Hartlepool War Memorial and accepted by the West Hartlepool Borough Council in 1923 with the definition as provided by the Mayor who had previously accepted the gift in its own minutes as 'West Hartlepool War Memorial comprising Victory Square and the monument erected thereon' and even more significantly had nothing in common with Victory Square as originally laid out, a shopping centre having fifty years ago after the Second World War in the 1960s been constructed which extended for whatever reason to the land which originally had formed a section of this originally First World War memorial as defined). You do not perhaps fully appreciate the possibility therefore that my own supposed 'original research' relates in the first instance to those matters which I have made clear I hope (the arguable lack of historical value as evidence, and in fact completely misleading statement, of certain other parties in Wikpedia articles, including in particular whoever was responsible for this particular entry in Hartlepool). I conclude that you may of course in this as in other respects have a valid point but it would be helpful if you made clear what you believe I now say on this matter in this article which comes within what you describe as 'original research' (I am sorry but this is a term which I find rather difficult to understand unless, as I have pointed out, it is related to the useful attempt elsewhere to provide definitions of evidence, a rather complicated issue but one which so far as government is concerned, as in the present case, can I suggest be held to be defined in legal terms with particular reference to public documents one of which is quoted in the article and is here mentioned, it being a central issue given its historical significance). I admit however there are other statements that are more controversial and in fact I say this within the article. If people disagree they are at liberty to enter into discussion on the Talk page. They have so far for whatever reason not done so however. I myself, Sir, consider this in the circumstances to be the best way to tackle the matter rather than removing such comments altogether, or suggesting I should do so.

You are Sir no doubt (I repeat) correct in supposing that this article could be described as (I quote) 'too long' if restricted to its title (that of a particular war memorial). As you will perhaps recall however amongst the text now removed by yourself there were amongst other matters the following statements (which I believe are sufficiently confirmed by documentary evidence to have been in principle acceptable) in relation to the notable element in European history, the creation of a 'fête de la Victoire' or 'Victory Parade' on the French National Holiday in 1919, with the first involvement of foreign troops having taken place in 1916, under a different title, that which has since with a few exceptions taken place on the same sites, that is including the Champs-Elysees since 1925 entitled 'Victory Parade'): (1) The Whitehall Cenotaph (also associated with the burial of the Unknown Warrior) originated in part from the 1919 Victory Parade, Paris, and more directly from the Peace Parade in London five days later; (2) cf. also the Thiepval Memorial by Lutyens, the architect of the London Cenotaph, carrying the flags of two nations or empires, France and Britain, together with the graves of soldiers likewise from both nations or empires, and in the form of an arch relating to the Arc de Triomphe in Paris and therefore to the history and architecture of both France and those European nations participating in the Victory Parade in Paris in 1919, as here in outline referred to; and (3) (in relation to the Nazi Germany and the Second World War, being in effect a citation from the Wikipedia website quoted, q.v. Welthauptstadt Germania the German Arch of Triumph which was to be based on the Arc-de-Triomphe in Paris and to carry the names of the German dead of the First World War.

I wish therefore in conclusion to suggest (whether or not this is relevant to your action as an editor) that the immediate relevance of this to the present interpretations of history as reflected in architecture within Europe is now (July 2011) fully demonstrated on the French language website http://www.liberation.fr/societe/01012349187-eva-joly-propose-de-supprimer-le-defile-militaire-du-14-juillet which has (so it seems) within a matter of hours been responded to by no fewer than one thousand comments (also of course in the same language) it being possibly the case that there is unfortunately not one of them that refers to this particular sort of arguably demonstrable historical and architectural relationship with the 20th Century in general and consequently to war memorials elsewhere both east and west including of course the West Hartlepool War Memorial with its inscription on one side 'Thine O Lord is the Victory' (with the connection of this date with French and European history apparently confirmed in relation to the First World War in the reliable website http://www.garnison-paris.terre.defense.gouv.fr/14juillet2008/les-coulisses/historique-du-defile.htm ).

• • Please note that in the circumstances the foregoing two paragraphs may be copied in their present form and be added together with covering text to the Talk page on West Hartlepool War Memorial (where you may wish to make your own comments in reply) and this will contain a citation to the present Talk page (unless of course you or any other interested party have some particular objection which I hope will be put here on this page before Wednesday 20th July and will be reasonable given what I suggest once again are the possible national and international significence of these matters). Au revoir, 'Mr Willow'.

Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.173.35 (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Salix

Please note the concluding three paragraphs above (added to-day, 15 July and addressed of course to yourself in particular the thrid paragraph) on what is perhaps a long-running European issue which is now perhaps more evident than it was before, for the reason given (the currrent debate within France a heated one upon which I forecast nothing!). Thanks again.

Peter Judge

A reply to your comments at Sieve of Eratosthenes

Hello, Salix alba. You have new messages at Talk:Sieve of Eratosthenes.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Here's my reply to your comments there:

Thank you for the pointers. I've read up on those now (and no, I don't like to be forced to become wikilegalist instead of just relying on good will of others); WP:CIVIL has "deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves" under "2. Other uncivil behaviors". I feel very much it was that way, when the other editor proceeded with unilateral edits, absolutely ignoring any my attempts at discussion on talk page (one clear example is right above this point in the discussion thread). And that in itself is in breach of WP:CONSENSUS and falls under WP:DISRUPTIVE. Thank you. WillNess (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll reply here rather than on the talk page as this does not concern the content of the article.

For wikipedia to work it needs to establish some house rules for how people behave and the tone of language people use, generally things work better if people make some effort to be nice to each other. Calling someone an "arrogant ignorant vandal" is not being nice or civil. Such language tends to block communication. CRGreathouse may not have been the best communicator but he managed to avoid the level of plain insult.

I've not commented on actual article as I'm still trying to understand the topic and the discussion. The Haskell code does indicate the algorithm simply but after reading the O’Neill paper it seems that there is a lot of subtleties in how Haskell actually interprets and executes the codes. For this reason I'd be cautious about any Haskell code samples, and they would need to come from a published source. It might be simpler just not to include any Haskell code, but instead mention the Turner algorithm and the critique of it. It is not wikipedias job to be a code repository which is better handle buy external links.--Salix (talk): 18:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I know it's no great fun, but if you'd study the talk page's history in chronological order, you'd see that I tried hard and for a long time to keep it on the level, but his unilateral edits just pushed me over the edge, when he/she didn't respond in any substantial manner to any of my comments.

As for the ONeill article, it's a confused and confusing one, mostly because she doesn't start from the definition, so she never quite articulates what's that special ingredient that makes the SoE tick as fast as it does (that's the counting in steps-jumps-increments BTW). Take a look at this for a step-by-step development. I had a reasonable discussion on one of the older versions (or maybe even before that) of the WP article, which referred to the Haskell code's notation, so had to have the code there (specifically referring to the "minus" operation as an abstract one and analyzing its performance in various settings - w/ arrays, lists, etc.). The code was summarily removed, together with that whole discussion. The article is now back to its bare minimum state. WillNess (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I've seen the haskell.org page and run the examples. While it looks good, it can't be used a a wikipedia source as most of it is written by you so classes as WP:OR. Wikipedia is really for old established stuff rather than the latest algorithms. --Salix (talk): 10:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess that's what WP:OR says; I'm not fond of its strict implementation though. I think we both know that the more "deep" into a problem space a given page is, the more OR it has, and it's good IMO, so long as it's the true info. Let the humanities pseudo-sciences squabble about sourcing; most(/much/some?) published material is no good anyway; being published is no guarantee for anything nowadays. Take the ONeill article; it overlooks the simplest of improvements of "postponing" the sieving to the right moment, and ends up with the much praised code which, as published, is an incredible memory hog, guaranteed to take at least $\Theta (n)$ space (she fixed that in the downloadable code of course...).

For instance I removed from the complexity section in the article my bit about how conflation of value and address makes integer sorting so much faster than comparison sorting, and how that is the reason for sieve's low complexity. That is my hard won insight, I didn't read about it in ONeill article, it's only natural to want to share it. An interested reader comes along in hopes to find good stuff on Wikipedia, extra stuff, is my understanding. Now verifiability is key, of course; let's have some system where some experts would verify and could vouch for such simply verifiable OR ... As it is now, Wikipedia (in its limit) is not a sum of human knowledge - it is a sum of published knowledge - unless the OR policy is overlooked, as it is on most good "hard sciences" pages. This can't be right. WillNess (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This might explain the cause of your problems. Most of the regulars on WikiProject mathematics will take quite a hard line on OR. There have been too many incidents of people with a particular agenda or pet theories. For an extreme example see the West Hartlepool post above. No OR is a particularly effective tool against this and it has been one of the things which has helped wikipedia achieve what it has. Even when its a seemingly straight forward improvement when its not backed by a reliable source it doesn't go in.--Salix (talk): 17:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've a huge personal favor to ask of you. There was a miscommunication on my behalf toward User:Fly_by_Night. I misunderstood, didn't pay proper attention, and misspoke, and ended up offending him/her unintentionally - I used my own language which sounded to them as something completely different, and offensive. I never intended it to happen, and as soon as I realized what happened I posted explanations and retractions. But they were lengthy and that user felt so offended it seems, that they did not read it. When I sent my explanations later, it must have looked as if I was shifting, in fear of punishment or something. But I was being sincere, as evident on my talk page, where I've added those explanations before their reaction. Could you please, please look into it, at the bottom of my talk page, and if you find it at all possible, intercede on my behalf? WillNess (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Polygon drawing

Hi,

Please see my comments at Talk:Polygon#Drawings_of_different_types — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token b4c42498d2324b140300f8cfc008dc9f

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

TUSC token ec1238aaec9616cb033deda105db99c6

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! --Salix (talk): 07:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

AFDs of Wikipedia Ambassadors Program articles

I saw your comment on the AFD of strxfrm[8] and, since there has been another case today, I have raised the matter at WP:ANI[9]. Thincat (talk) 09:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Multiple Inheritance

Hi. I have not done any copyvio on my project page Multiple Inheritance. But I see you have reverted back all my changes. May I know why have you done that? Also the entire material as well as diagrams were made by me. There were some users who said that the definition seem to be possible copyvio. So I changed that. Other than that there was nothing that was copied. So I request you to please bring back my changes. RAJATPASARI (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

See also: User talk:RAJATPASARI#Multiple inheritance --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:Multiple inheritance to keep things in one place.--Salix (talk): 21:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok. So you had problem with my image. Fine. But what about the content ? As I already said there was just problem with the definition. So what was the need of removing the entire contents? RAJATPASARI (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Your contributions seem to be: in the lead

The class inheritance lets you generate a model that is closer to the real-world. The class inheritance lets you derive new classes (called derived classes) from old ones, with the derived class inheriting the properties, including the methods of the old class, known as base class.

The most important advantage of inheritance is code reusability. Once a base class is written, it can be used anywhere and any how without having to redefine it or rewrite it. Already checked and previously written codes can be reused. Reusing existing code saves time, money, and efforts and the program becomes more efficient and reliable. Without redefining the old class, you can add new properties to the derived class and this makes Multiple Inheritance a very good structuring tool in C++.

When a sub class inherits from multiple base classes, it is known as multiple inheritance. Fig. illustrates multiple inheritance.

This is more to do with inheritance in general rather than multiple inheritance in particular. It is also flawed the aim of inheritance is not to be closer to the real world.

Then there is a new Need for Multiple Inheritance section

== Need for Multiple Inheritance ==

Inheritance is an important concept of object-oriented languages. There are several reasons why inheritance was introduced into object-oriented language. Some major reasons are :

• One of the reasons is the expression of inheritance relationship which sees that it closely resembles the real-world methods.
• Another important reason is the idea of reusability. The advantages of reusability are : faster processes, easier maintenance, and easy to extend. One can derive a new class (subclass or derived class) from an existing one and add new features to it.

Suppose we have classes called College Students and Science Students and we need to add new class called Engineering Students. We derive the new class Engineering Students from the existing classes College Students and Science Students and then all we do is add the distinguishing features to Engineering Students that differentiates between college, science students and engineering students. This reduces the amount of typing and efforts considerably.

• One reason is transitive property of inheritance. That is, if a class X is derived from another class W, then all subclasses of X will automatically show the properties of class W. This property is called transitive nature of inheritance.

Suppose we derive class X from existing class W. The classes Y and Z inherit from class X. Later on we find that class W has a discrepancy(bug) that must be fixed. After fixing the problem in W, it is automatically reflected across all classes that are derived(inherited) from W. This has indeed reduced the amount of efforts that one would have taken if each class derived from W was to be corrected separately. This makes transitiveness as one of the most important properties of Multiple Inheritance.

Again this is mostly about Inheritance in general. The example seems flawed, surely Science Students would be derived from College Students. Engineering and Science would have more a sibling relationship rather the is-a or has-a relationship for inheritance. The current example of a cartoon cat better captures the essence of multiple inheritance. That was not in the article at the time of your edits. The material about transitive relations is off topic. Thats an important but separate issue. Finally you lacking any sources for your material see WP:V.

Overall your doing better than most IEP students. WIth an existing article its harder to get material included. The most helpful addition would be to find sources to backup some of the statements in the article.--Salix (talk): 09:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. And I also thank you for appreciating my work. I'll show the differences link as suggested by you to my instructor. I know my article was not properly structured. I'll keep these points the next time I do some editing.

RAJATPASARI (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Garrett Lisi

I would like to mention that I'm trying to get a reasonable and NPOV version of Antony Garrett Lisi's page, that currently has been under censorship from User SherryNugil that does not want to include the current status of the Lisi's theory and that wants to keep all the articles and interviews and tv appearances and blog entries and forum discussions about Lisi. Not even for Nobel Prize Laureates there is such a complete list. I am also reporting that user for several reasons and it would be good if you could participate to the discussion giving your opinion, given that in the past you contributed to that page. Look at the discussion page for the last happenings. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Salix, thanks for your help. Are you available to discuss a slightly longer but more clear sentence in the lede, compared to the one you already wrote (see discussion page answers)?

Also, would you be available to help us with the other 5 points, or should I try to edit again the page? I'm afraid of reverts from SherryNugil if it's just me editing 24.7.128.58 (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)