Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This 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. |
But they seldom seem to even notice that science fiction fandom (which predates the average FW reader by at least a couple-three decades) still exists. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Is it time to notch this up to ANI (or AN for a ban?). I've had an email request expressing a lot of frustration with him. Dougweller (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Civility is a two way street. I am surprised that you recall our discussions the way that you do., I wish to again thank you for bringing the details of the Liber Abaci to my attention in 2005. An under grad math education generally mentioned the [[Liber Abaci] and other Fibonacci writings in three classes. Reading Sigler's 2002 translation, especially the first 125 pages of the 500 page book, opened medieval unit fraction arithmetic in ways that I had not expected. It seems that learning is a life-long activity. Best Regards, Milogardner (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, shouldn't bother you on your day job but I have a real quick question. Is solving an NP Complete problem of input length N always equivalent to diagonalising a sparse matrix of side ? Ta. Enjoyed your web pages on NP complete by the way. You do a pretty good job of making stuff accessible; have you written textbooks? --BozMo talk 13:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
1. My signature on fibonacci number article's discussion is now on it's proper place, thank you :)
2. Relating to using that external forum discussion and comments about test results, and how I used them as references... sorry about that. I did it because the testable point about cell division rates (like doing a visual computer simulation, and seeing whether results will have proper ratios in different parameters, conditions, and disruptions at various stages, will give proper golden mean proportions and volumes of simulated cells) seemed to me like it could be relevant, yet I have not found it thus explained before (only with more complicated models with more, and more hypothetical parameters, like I mentioned therein.)... and since I have no academic official credentials nor any other channels of publication for such a place where more people focusing also on this matter could find it and consider it for testing and validity, the wikipedia article discussion page seemed like the place for getting interested people to consider it at their will. As can be seen, I earlier did post it to one forum I knew, where some mathematically and biosciences proficient people also participated. Amongst various diverse commentators of that forum, also few persons seriously considering and attempting to test it, tell of their methods of testing, and their seemingly confirming results on that thread. Then, for a long time nothing happened, and even later that site was closed for further comments entirely, for other reasons. It would seem like pointless to me, if potentially working model was thus forgotten within inactive forum of net... as it seems that if the model is correct and working, and gives reproducible results, it could provide additional insight and comprehension into mundane workings of living organisms and their processes. If I am doing entirely wrong thing here at wikipedia discussions with this, could You recommend or point me towards a more proper area for such publication and evaluation processes about this topic ? (I am bit ignorant on workings of academic infrastructure :s )
MaxTperson (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for creating the graphic exemplifying the Shapley–Folkman lemma. Your graphic is the best I've ever seen. (The array of the 4=2*2 summands makes each larger than it would be in a 3=1*3=3*1 array.)
I immediately nominated your graph on the DYK page (18th). Thanks! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
David, I want to award you an appropriate barnstar. Please choose one and hide the rest. (Please feel free to modify either text or graphic. Thank you again for your hard work the last weeks. My best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe that Paul Erdös would deduct several points from the Supreme Fascist's score because of the several mitzvahs done by David.
The Mensch's Barnstar | ||
David Eppstein earned the Mensch's Barnstar by writing & illustrating Jon Folkman, Shapley–Folkman lemma, Folkman's theorem, and Folkman graph. Six-thousand visitors read the articles featured by Wikipedia's "Did you know?". Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC) |
I apologize that another Swedish-American, Ed Begley, Jr.'s character in A Mighty Wind, has greater fluency.
You may prefer one of these barnstars:
The Permutohedron Barnstar | ||
David Eppstein earned the Permutohedron Barnstar by writing & illustrating the Shapley–Folkman lemma.-- Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC) |
The Zonotope Barnstar | ||
David Eppstein earned the Zonotope Barnstar by writing & illustrating the Shapley–Folkman lemma.-- Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC) |
Please hide whichever barnstars you don't chose, so I don't look sentimental!
Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello David
Re Ptolemy's Thm page.
I added the white space because otherwise the graphic 'overflows' into the next section and it looks terrible.
Neil Parker (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, David. I notice that our friend User:Tim32 has opened a Wikiquette alert concerning us: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Talk:Graph isomorphism. Thought you might like to know. —Bkell (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I just wished to enquire what level of 'significant notability' is required to restore the page on Mr David Walford. he was by far the most inspiring teacher i ever had the blessing to study with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.100.169 (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
No, I have restored my edits 3 times. The edits I removed are pure bunk with no credible sources. I am not defending Sitchin, but these previous edits are pathetic and would not be allowed under any other circumstances. The Skeptical Dictionary is not a credible source and the use of the word "ridiculed" is pejorative and the opinion of it's author. "Rejected by" or "not accepted by" or "dismissed by" are appropriate, not "ridiculed". And furthermore, the association to the Raelian religion is a purely manufactured association by the author of the blog in the Skeptic's dictionary. And the other equally dubious associations have no sources.
On 28 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jon Folkman, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
On 28 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shapley–Folkman lemma, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Forbidden-line-subgraphs.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) 15:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Period-3-graph.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) 03:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Someone (I suspect the author) keeps adding a reference to the book "My Inventions in Number Theory" to List of unsolved problems in mathematics. The ISBN given does not show up on Google Books, Amazon or even Worldcat, so it's clearly not notable. I think I may already be in violation of WP:3RR for reverting its addition, so I cannot continue removing it. The most recent such edit is here. If it continues, the article might need to be protected. Thanks, Justin W Smith talk/stalk 12:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
As a courtesy, could you respond on the Talk page to my reasons for keeping the material you have reverted here? Brews ohare (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
|V|^2 = V^2, am I Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.160.104 (talk • contribs)
I started the article Orchard-planting problem. Feel free to copy edit and/or add it to your watchlist. Thanks, Justin W Smith talk/stalk 02:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Erdős–Bacon number. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. A person's website cannot be used as a source for information about himself. I could claim that I was an extra in every one of Bacon's films; but that doesn't make it true. Read WP:RS. It needs independent sourcing for both the Erdos link and the Bacon link. Additionally, he is not credited in the film itself, so it is unlikely there is a reliable source to support that claim. Cresix (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi David! Please see my talk page. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Could you look at page about lamination and lavaurs algorithm. I'm not expert so your help is wellcome. Thx.--Adam majewski (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I have explained my edits at Wikipedia talk:Scientific citation guidelines. I hope once you review the explanation, that you consider undoing your wholesale revert. This guideline contained duplicate sections (the removal of which should be uncontentious) and went out on a limb wrt attribution of original thought and research. Please explain where in our policy such use (abuse) of reference citations is encouraged or even allowed. Colin°Talk 19:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Please, I would like to better understand your viewpoint. Would you use the new section on the continued fraction talk page (link) to explain why you consider it acceptable to have a recursive definition that cannot terminate. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 20:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
hi!
thanx for expanding the http:// cites i added to Amanda Palmer. If you have the time, there are others (hence the warning box on that section). she also won a Boston Music Award in 2008(?) (distinct from the BMAs, the Dresden Dolls won), which needs a cite to be listed. Lentower (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I saw that the Steve Smale article uses a photo of him that you uploaded two years ago to the Commons File:Stephen Smale.jpg. The license specified at the file description page is Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0. However, the source page for the image at Oberwolfach gives the copyright as "Copyright: George M. Bergman, Berkeley". There is no indication at the source page that the copyright has been released. As things stand now, the image is deletable (even speediable) as an apparent copyvio. Could you please fix the licensing information? If the image's creator has indeed released the copyright, he either needs to contact the WMF directly and confirm it (and the result presumably recorded via an OTRS ticket), or the licensing info at the image source page needs to be changed. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
David --- assuming you have the ability to --- would you please undelete Richard A. Karp and then immediately nominate it for deletion through WP:AFD to protect it from Orangemike? If it's not undeleted by tomorrow afternoon, I'll re-create it from scratch and nominate it for AFD myself, but it would save me a huge amount of time if some editor could simply restore the old article.
Alternatively, if you have the ability to undelete things but not the inclination to create new mainspace articles, you could undelete it and put it in User:Quuxplusone/Richard A. Karp. Again, that would save me time compared to rewriting the whole thing from scratch.
If you don't have the ability to view deleted articles, please let me know ASAP on User talk:Quuxplusone. Thanks very much! --Quuxplusone (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosh_Agarwal Thomas Diflo Deborah Axelrod Any doctor that appears when you type in Dr. Weill into the wikipedia search engine such ass Antonio Gotto Thanks for your expertise Chumleychat (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I started a discussion as to the notability of clergymen at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Clergymen, your input is welcome. J04n(talk page) 15:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. You wrote "Your edit summary for this edit implies that you think that parenthetical (author-year) referencing is somehow improper. It is not." The earlier version mentioned one of the authors (not both) along with the year in the text. I mentioned both authors, which is proper. Duoduoduo (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.