# User talk:Duoduoduo

Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Duoduoduo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

## Math notation

Your recent edits to repeating decimal prompt some comments. See WP:MOSMATH where most of this is codified. Some of it is in WP:MOS.

• You seem to be under an impression that one should italicize everything in non-TeX mathematical notation. That is wrong. One itaclizis variables, but not digits nor parentheses or other punctuation nor operator names like max, log, sin, gcd, det, etc.
• One uses proper spacing before and after "+", "=", and the like. (I use a non-breakable space with binary operators like "+".) (But "+" as a unary operator should have no space after it, as when one refers to the number +5.)
• A minus sign is not a stubby little hyphen.
• So for example this is wrong:
p-5
whereas this is right:
p − 5
You should notice four things here: the "5" is not italicized; the p is italicized; the minus sign is not a hyphen; and a space precedes and follows the minus sign.
• Use \text{} when appropriate in TeX. Thus
$a = \text{period of }b \,$
is right whereas
$a = period \ \ of \ \ b$
is not. The TeX code for the former is this:
$a = \text{period of }b \,$
• Use \pmod in TeX when appropriate. Thus
$a \equiv b \pmod n \,$
is right, whereas
$a \equiv b \ mod\ n$
is not. The TeX code for the former is this:
$a \equiv b \pmod n \,$
• Use \max, \sin, \log, \exp, \det, \gcd, etc. with backslashes in TeX. This prevents italicization and makes proper formatting automatic. Thus if you write
5\sin x
then the x will be italicized but sin will not, and a space will appear between sin and x and between sin and 5. But if you write
5 sin x
in TeX, then it will come out as 5sinx with both sin and x italicized and no space between them. Similarly if you write \max_{a \in A} in TeX, it looks like this:
$\max_{a \in A} \,$
whereas if you write max_{a \in A} with no backslash, it looks like this:
$max_{a \in A} \,$
In effect, the backslash tells TeX to use the proper formatting conventions for the occasion.
(I don't think \lcm works; you need to write \operatorname{lcm}.)
• In ranges of pages, use an en-dash, not a hyphen. Thus pp. 52–63 is correct. Similarly for ranges of years or other numbers:
John Xmith (1892–2008) was a great mathematician.
etc.

Michael Hardy (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, another one: Don't write

\text{ln} \ \ 2.

Instead, write

\ln 2

This automatically causes proper spacing to appear before and after ln, which will be unitalicized. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

## Inflation

Thanks for your recent edit at inflation. Nice cleanup! LK (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

## Your contributed article, Economics terminology that differs from common usage

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Economics terminology that differs from common usage. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Outline of economics. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Outline of economics - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, 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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. andy (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

## Proposed deletion of Economics terminology that differs from common usage

The article Economics terminology that differs from common usage has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

POV essay, references are incidental to the article's subject; original research

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

## Suggestions for improvement

I'm confident that the article will not be deleted. I think the best way to help that would be to start improving it. I understand that it may be difficult to work on something that might be deleted, but lets' see what we can do.

Your third paragraph in the Money" section is problematic. While I agree that many people misunderstand the distinctions between flow and stock, this isn't the place to make that distinction. Your primary point is solid - the everyday statement, "she has a lot of money" is not the economic usage. However, in the statement, "he makes a lot of money" the usual mode of payment is money, so the confusion isn't about the meaning of the term "money" but the flow/stock distinction, which belongs either elsewhere or nowhere, or wait till later.

I suggest ditching the third paragraph for now, and work on sourcing the other two.--SPhilbrickT 01:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• I now think I was incorrect in my speedy deletion tag, sorry. I see that another editor restored their {{Prod}} tag but I've now removed it because it should not have been restored once you contested it. I'm sure the article won't go to AfD. :) andy (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

## I have marked you as a reviewer

I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.

If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.

To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.

The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

## Barnstar

 The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar Good job addressing this and that throughout the economics space! CRETOG8(t/c) 02:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

## Monetary economics edit

How, D. I can only welcome the presence of an economist on economics pp.

I wonder if you could expand slightly on your Monetary economics edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monetary_economics&diff=370339259&oldid=370119650 with an Edit summary of: "correct name of reference section". I can find nothing in the WP:MOS suggesting that the previous headings were incorrect or inferior. I'd be happy to see your arguments here (or wherever) to the contrary. I hope that you'd feel the same about my own arguments. If we can't agree, we could always take it to the ME Talk page, unless you'd like to go there now. Thx. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, ThomasMeeks! Having just taken another look at the page WP:Citing sources, I see that the guidelines give wide latitude. My reasoning in the case of Monetary economics was this: Before my edit, there was a section called "Notes" that contained nothing but references, and a section called "References" containing additional references. If someone clicked directly to "References", they would miss the most important references—the ones important enough to have been cited in the article. Since "Notes" contained (as far as I could see) no notes (no sentences), just references, I renamed it "References". And since the old "References" contained only some of the references, I renamed it "Further reading". This is a common approach in Wikipedia, although often "Further references" is used instead of "Further reading". Another approach would be to delete the "Further reading" section heading entirely, and just have its articles appear at the bottom of the section I labelled "References". I've seen this done too, and perhaps it is the best approach.
What do you think? Duoduoduo (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate your are explicitness. We're agreed on WP:Citing sources as to wide latitude. I also agree that there's nothing "wrong" w the Refs/Further-reading usage, but it's not hard to find scholarly sources that follow the Notes/Refs terminology either. I haven't scoured my Chicago Manual of Style or Turabian (oops, I tossed the latter to save shelf space), but I don't think that they say that either is wrong. So, I don't think that an alleged semantic advantage is likely to be persuade here. Instead, we look for what conveys the advantages of each section heading. For ease of reference, let me number points below.
1T. As your comment suggests, one standard usage of 'note' is def. 3b(2) at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/note linkable as noun, as a printed comment and/or reference set apart from the text. 'Notes' has the advantage of conciseness (2 syllables less than 'References', 1 less than 'Footnotes' or 'End notes'). IMO, the bigger advantage is in reserving 'References' for an appropriate later and usage (on which see below). Those who click to a fn. number surely will not be disappointed to find "only references," which is usually the case in WP. Nor would they have any good reason to depend on their repetition in the "References" section. There is no such repetition.
2T. "Further readings" suggests references that are less important than the text of the article — else it would have been included as a fn. "References" avoids that suggestion. In the earlier usage of ME, Refs. includes many general references ("classics", closely-related subjects, handbooks, top-of-the line textbooks, treatises, etc.) that tie in to ME, but not necessarily closely enough to make the fine-grained subjects in the text of the article. That does not make them less interesting or useful to the general reader. Indeed, they might be more useful for distinguishing the "forest" from the "trees" in a comprehensive, unified way. Game theory#References has a nice breakdown according to types of Refs. (Possibly the Refs. section in the earlier version could be retooled along those lines — I'm not sure here b/c of the small number of refs., but I could work on it.)
3T. On removing a separate heading for non-footnoted "Refs.", that looks like spillover. The fn. and non-fn. cites have different functions, warranting different headings, according to common scholarly practice. I hope that we're able to reach agreement. It's not a matter of win/lose here but of fruitful discussion. Thx for your response above. All for today. P.S. I might be a while in responding to your post on my Talk page. You might press the Watch tab on that page. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion about it, so I'll leave it up to you. Thanks, Duoduoduo (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your consideration. For some time, I have thought reorganizing the section following the endnotes in ME. I'll try to come up w something better than the status quo ante* before proceeding. Thank you. P.S. I've replied to your separate point on my Talk page. * Yes, I do like those links. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Duoduoduo. You have new messages at Fuhghettaboutit's talk page. --~~~~~

## Signing out

Over and out.... Duoduoduo (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

## Economics

Hi again, D. Per Talk:Economics#Didn't Get Past the First Sentence, I don't think it would be wise to act wout consulting you first. Care to discuss it here or there? BW, Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

## Request a review

This has not been added to a wiki.

It reads like soapbox , POV, but more importantly is the statiscal information being presented Are they working from the right side of the graph to exclusion of the entire sample, if it is a true frequency distribution why a multiplying factor, would't that fudge the results? AA's 100% of the population sample is already included in the graph. http://hindsfoot.org/recout01.pdf

Would appreciate lay man speak in your reply.

Sincerely yours Jayseer (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The link you provided (http://hindsfoot.org/recout01.pdf) seems to be an internal AA document, and not a peer-reviewed article. As such it would appear to be a primary source and thus one that is not appropriate to cite in Wikipedia. Beyond that, I don't think I have enough time to do a detailed review of that article. Hope this helps, though. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The document is not an internal aa source . It is a piece written by anonymous authors, It appears to be a POV piece, the statistics and how they derived them are questionable. Jayseer (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

## re reliable source

sorry to bother you one more time, I will keep my postings to a minimum, I need some help regarding what is and what is not a reliable source.

a little help on clarification of reliable sources. Bankole Johnson Is this a reliable source if not the reason why? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080602660.html He is publishing a book it will be within the next 3 months, would it be better to use the book as a reference.

This newspaper article says that there is little evidence for something. The Wikipedia article should not state that there is little evidence, but it could say that "it has been asserted [give citation and qualifications of author: professor of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences, and paid consultant to pharmaceutical companies] that there is little evidence...." Also, this newspaper article says: "A recent review by the Cochrane Library, a health-care research group, of studies on alcohol treatment conducted between 1966 and 2005 states its results plainly: 'No experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA or TSF [12-step facilitation] approaches for reducing alcohol dependence or problems.'" You might want to go back to that source and cite it in the Wikipedia article, since it looks like it probably presents unbiased and careful research. Also the forthcoming book could be cited when it comes out. Duoduoduo (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Duoduoduo, I wll stay in touch you have been most helpful, I botched up editing on the wiki in the psst and a friend said rather than get into editing conflicts consult the reviewers the people with the awards and recognition. P.S. the link below my gut feeling is that it doesnt meet wiki critiera, that it may be a violation , if that is the case which one. Jayseer (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

is this a reliable source for wiki purposes, can it be cited and the link posted as a reference on the wiki. http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/AAHistoryLovers/message/4447

Also did some research on a Loren Archer.

Loran Archer was co-director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism when the Rand Reports were published in 1976 and 1980. The second, four-year Rand follow-up was particularly hard on disease advocates since it found that – among a highly dependent government-treated population – safe drinking resolutions were as stable as abstinence – more so for some sub-groups! Archer and the NIAAA’s director, John DeLuca, set about reinterpreting the research. This provoked a response from the authors published in an article by Jane Brody in the NY Times (January 29, 1980), along with Archer and DeLuca’s rejoinders: The directors of the alcohol institute ... readily acknowledged their 'honest differences' with the scientists in interpreting their findings. The Rand Researchers, in turn, have expressed dismay with what they see as a distorted interpretation of their findings ... Mr. Archer said that he was strongly committed to the philosophy that total abstinence was the only sure path to recovery from alcoholism. Mr. DeLuca questioned whether any alcoholic who could safely return to drinking had been an alcoholic to begin with.

http://www.peele.net/blog/100106.html

More So he appears to have extreme bias

The second Rand report (Polich et al., 1981) responded systematically to criticisms of the original report; again, the investigators found substantial numbers of what they termed "nonproblem" drinkers. Criticism by the NCA and related groups was somewhat muted this time around, while a large number of social scientific reviews in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and the British Journal of Addiction were almost uniformly positive. The most remarkable consequence of the second report was that the Director of the NIAAA, John DeLuca, and his executive assistant, Loran Archer (neither of whom had a research background), offered their own summary of its results. This summary emphasized that abstinence ought to be the goal of all alcoholism treatment and that AA attendance offered the best prognosis for recovery, statements the report explicitly rejected (Brody, 1980).

http://www.peele.net/lib/denial.html Jayseer (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Jayseer (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The key thing about appropriate edits to Wikipedia articles is this: If you or I have an opinion, it's irrelevant. If a public figure has publicly expressed an opinion, and if there is reason to believe that his job title indicates some expertise, then it is appropriate to say in the Wikipedia article that "so-and-so [give job title] has asserted [give citation] that such-and-such is true". If there has been a public disagreement between two people who could reasonably be said to have some expertise, then the Wikipedia article should fairly state the arguments of each. Also, if the public figure has anything that anyone might consider a conflict of interest, the Wikipedia article should clearly state that (without claiming that the person should or should not be trusted). For example, if one person in the public debate is a paid consultant to pharmaceutical companies, that should be mentioned in passing, since some readers might consider that he has a financial interest in pharmaceutical treatments rather than AA-type treatments. Similarly, if a public figure is affiliated with AA, that fact should be mentioned, because some readers might think that makes the person biased in favor of AA techniques. The key thing is to give the reader all the information he needs to form his own judgments, without Wikipedia expressing any opinion of its own. Duoduoduo (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

## Volt

Hi Duoduoduo. I understand your request to change the language in the intro of the Chevrolet Volt article, but I am inclined to leave it as is, due to the inclusion of the word "primarily." Since the output of the ICE is only mechanically coupled to the drivetrain at speeds above 70 mph (and maybe only when the batteries are drained... I forget), I think it is fair to say that the ICE acts primarily as a generator.

I also noted that an editor removed much of the other language you inserted. I'm "on the fence" about that reversion, but I think I will leave it as is for now.

Sorry. I've not been much help to you in this. I don't tend to do a lot of "big" editing on Wikipedia these days. I mostly just correct errors and revert vandalism. If you feel strongly about the points you raised, please bring them up on the talk pages of the associated articles.

Sincerely, Ebikeguy (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

## "Proper referencing style"

Your edit summary for this edit implies that you think that parenthetical (author-year) referencing is somehow improper. It is not. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

## Chord (geometry) - Calculating circular chords

Hi user Duoduoduo, I have the information of the reference book but I don't know how to write it. I am an Argentine mathematician with poor knowledge of English. If you can and want to do, I would greatly appreciate.

@book{déplanche1996diccio,

 title={{Diccio f{\'o}rmulas}},
author={D{\'e}planche, Y.},
isbn={9788477471196},
url={http://books.google.com/books?id=1HVHOwAACAAJ},
year={1996},
publisher={Edunsa}


}

The formulas are provided on page 29 of the book.

A greeting to you.--Gusbelluwiki (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

## Please Sign Talk pages.

Please sign your signature on talk pages. Thank You. The signature icon looks like a pen at the bottom of the menu. Thank you sir. Papa Smooch (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

## Talk-page blanking

This is not correct...see WP:BLANKING guideline. I don't know if I agree with it, but it's the current standard. DMacks (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info -- I stand corrected. The problem with this policy, obviously, is that a repeat vandal can avoid having vandalism notices accumulate, so I'm guessing that someone dealing with a later vandalism incident will not realize there's a pattern. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Yup, it certainly makes it hard for observers to notice the history. When I'm vandal-trackin', I always look at the talk-page history (or at least the edit-history of the editor) rather than just the current state of the talk-page when deciding how to warn/block/whatever. If you have WP:POPUPS enabled, pointing at the editor's name/IP in a vandalized page's history will pop up a list of his recent edits. DMacks (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

## spherical trig

I answered a question you asked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spherical_trigonometry#Valid_theorems.3F I'm not sure if that's what you were looking for, but hopefully it is. 128.84.234.59 (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

## Mean squared error, etc.

You said ...

Hi, Melcombe, thanks for redoing mean square error as mean squared error. Probably this has already occurred to you, but I hope you can do the same thing with Root mean square deviation. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

One reason I was prepared to revert the renaming was Wikipedia's convention on retaining the original author's choice of spelling convention when it comes to different versions of English. I think the squared/square issue may fall under that heading. The article Root mean square deviation has always used "square" as far as I can see. Interestingly the stats dictionaries I have access to (all UK based) are inconsistent. One has "mean square error/deviation", "mean square succesive difference" but "mean semi-squared difference". Another has "mean squared error", but "mean square error esimation". A third has just "mean squared error". But there is no particular reason why you should not pursue renaming the aticles more to your taste. Often a response to such discussions is to do Google searchs of the possible variants and see how many hits each has. Melcombe (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

## Good source for wikipedia

Woodard is an okay authority. You have a great newspaper article of local history with a (Penguin) published author. Wikipedia requires that the reference is not self-published, not a web page only. Otherwise, it’s kind of like Thomas Jefferson, be unafraid to pursue truth wherever reason leads …

-(1) You Google search on the title of Woodard’s book mentioned at the bottom of the newspaper article. Sometimes you have to add the author. The top result happens to be here on “Amazon”.

-(2) You hit the “look inside” button, click “title page” and scroll down to get the footnote reference information. Author, title, date, publisher, ISBN number. Woodard, Colin. “The Lobster Coast: Rebels, Rusticators and the forgotten frontier” (2004) Penguin Books. ISBN: 0-670-03324-3. We use ISBN so we don’t inadvertently leave out alternate publishers, like a follow-on paperback, or distributors, such as Amazon, Nookbooks, etc. Now you can make a footnote for whatever you find using the citation convention < … > cite p. -- </ … >.

-(3) Then, you “search inside this book” for ‘secession’ to test whether the phrase is used. You get two results listed directly below: page 31 and page 150. As it happens, the two citations back up your initiative and my supplementary, supportive comment.

• Page 31. “later, these same (Scotch Irish) families would lead eighty years of violent resistance to the land speculators … helped prompt Maine’s secession from Massachusetts in 1820.”

• Page 150. Dunbar settlements laid the ground work for Maine’s secession from Massachusetts. “They had brought down the Federalists within the District of Maine and given the Democrat Republicans enough strength in the Massachusetts assembly to force the 1807 referendum on secession” which ultimately failed.

• Page 150. Massachusetts pro-British merchants opposed “Mister Madison’s War” of 1812. They would not defend Maine, instead, they supplied the enemy’s troops in their invasion and annexation of eastern settlements. Downeasters and Democrats would not forget.

An editor unsure of your contribution must find another source of greater prestige AND build an editor’s consensus on the discussion page to make a deletion stick. Wikipedia rule for editors: be bold. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

## Thank you for your Vermont catch

You were correct to reverse my edit on population in the article Vermont, wherein I had mistaken the previous edit for vandalism. I had failed to notice that it referred to population, not land area. I haven't seen a reference to support what I believe, along with you, to be a correct set of statistics. It would be helpful to add one. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 22:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

## Median (geometry)

Hello User:Duoduoduo, about reversio diff=424038783, i am de editor of de table "user:Gusbelluwiki" or User talk:Gusbelluwiki, dear Duoduoduo the four points that you expose are correct, please give me two days to fix them, I will do after the merger, as you request, but please do not take my work. Greets him cordially--Gusbelluwiki (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• User:Duoduoduo, please forget my last comment. You did an excellent job in the article "Median (geometry)".--Gusbelluwiki (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

## Your user page

Just here to tell you you've got a wonderful user page. Thank you! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Glad you like it. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

## Re: Can you redraw image?

I replied on my talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

## TAM

Hi, yeah I see a couple of the errors in there and I didn't catch them although some of them are still correct like the first bit "are one of various systems" (or whatever it was exactly) -- in this sentence and in most of the edit I am referring to TAM systems as a group noun. I'm fine with the edit being reverted but someone (probably not me) needs to either delete that article because it's original research that pulls tons of only slightly related sources together to attempt to justify that TAM is somehow an accepted approach. It's not and as I pointed out in the discussion page, it doesn't even work. There are so many holes in this theory that anyone using it would fall flat on their face before getting out a correct answer. It's not that the ideas behind this approach are wrong, it's that there is more that is being missed than is being accounted for. There's a reason TAM has only just recently been added to other articles on WP about tense and aspect and mood: it doesn't work. Actually the author of this article is the one who added all the references everywhere he could find a spot at the same time he wrote the article. I'm sure he had good intentions, but the fact is that only people who lack an holistic understanding of syntax in regard to these elements would see potential in this article. It's got the appearance of a well researched entry, but in fact it's the equivalent of a page full of 'big words'.

Had I stumbled onto this article when it was open for deletion, I would have argued vehemently for deletion. As it is, the arguments for keeping the article seem to have been based more on the fact that it has references and lots of terminology than anything else and the decision to keep it seems to have been made without seeking input from linguists in this field.

Like I said, I don't mind the revert, and I'm not the person to rewrite the article because I think the whole topic is crap, but if not deleted it does need to be pulled down until rewritten or given a citation which clearly identifies it as what it is rather than making it look like "this is how you do..." Drew.ward (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

## Example of improper induction.

Allow me this one edit. Anthropogenic Global Warming theories is the most current and important topic de jour.

As a fellow Economist, and as a political scientist with experience in aeronautical engineering, I want you to reason the fact that the scientific method has not and will not be used on open systems. Predictions on open systems cannot be tested: The complex dynamic nature of the biosphere, full of negative and positive feedback loops are poor testing grounds for the hypothesis that CO2 variations will increase global temperature to a predictable degree. Any predictions made on this scenario are meaningless and constitute Coincidence. Meaningful experiments would require replicas of our planet with single variables like water absorption being systematically removed to account for the effects of each variable. To assert with any measure of confidence that these assertions about CO2 and global warming can be made, we would need to apply the scientific method, which to my limited knowledge has not been applied and never will.

Yours sincerely, Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.29.228.16 (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

## Conjugation tables

I got your message about the conjugation tables and responded on the conjugation talk page. I am not in favor of deleting it. How does this process occur? Where do I give input to the process?bruvensky (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I answered this in my response on the conjugation talk page -- just click on the bluelink in line two of the notice at the top of the conjugation article. Or, you can click on the bluelink I put on your talk page. Clicking in either place will get you to the deletion discussion, to which you can contribute by clicking "edit this page". I suggest you hurry, though -- the discussion has been there long enough that an administrator may make a decision very soon. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

## List of language subsystems

Hi, Duoduoduo. I undid your recent change to List of language subsystems, since the page is primarily about natural languages, and the page Syntax discusses the syntax of natural languages. It may be useful to add information about and links to Syntax (logic) and Syntax (programming languages), and possibly other relevant pages on syntax, but I thought that a bullet point doesn't lend itself well to such niceties. What do you think? Cnilep (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that change - to human languages - is good. Cheers, Cnilep (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

## Capitalism and Utilitarianism

Dear Professor and User Duoduoduo:

I have great admiration for your introduction and credo as expressed on your user page. You express interest in utilitarianism, maximizing total happiness of humanity. In attempting to act in accordance with this moral principle, is it valid to proclaim that Pure Laissez Faire Capitalism is the economic system which maximizes total happiness of humanity? Or should we at least use as a working hypotheses that Pure Laissez Faire Capitalism is the economic system which maximizes total happiness of humanity? RHB100 (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question. I'd say that the optimality of laissez-faire capitalism does not follow directly (that is, through logic alone) from the axiom of utilitarianism. It would have to be concluded from empirical evidence on its effects vs. the effects of all other possible systems. The problem is: How do you weight the happiness of one person vs. another? Just saying "maximize the total happiness of humanity" oversimplifies, vastly, because it doesn't say how to measure this. In fact, it is not at all clear that it is meaningful to say that one person is happier than another, much less to say how much happier. Economic theory avoids making such interpersonal comparisons when at all possible, by using ordinal utility rather than cardinal utility, and by distinguishing efficiency (also called Pareto efficiency or Pareto optimality, in which no one can be made better off without making someone worse off) and normative optimality (which requires normative assumptions about whose well-being matters how much). Thus any normative system will judge some efficient outcomes as better than others.
When economics makes these comparisons, it uses a social welfare function. One possible function is the Rawlsian one, which assumes we can make ordinal interpersonal comparisons and assumes that society's welfare equals the welfare of the worst-off person. There are many others.
One issue that arises is the assignment of property rights. Laissez-faire capitalism will give different outcomes based on different assignments of property rights, and not all of those outcomes can be optimal. So for example, assigning property rights to the air to polluting industries will give one set of outcomes, while assigning them to, say, everyone equally according to some voting system will cause firms to have to buy pollution rights, leading to different production choices and different outcomes for how well-off each person is.
So the answer to your question is: It's complicated! Duoduoduo (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

## Diversification (finance) / Examples

Dear Duoduoduo,

Thank you for your editing my little contribution on (the benefits of) Geographic Diversification- removal of unnecessary disambiguation

Best,

Solferino (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC).

## Econ

Totally agree. Perversely, though our science coverage is generally excellent I understand universities often frown on their students citing us. Whereas our econ articles are frequently linked to at the highest levels of online debate (e.g. econ forums, the inter civil service prep work that precedes G20s and similar summits, and over at the Financial Times where debaters include central bankers, & finance ministers as well as economists...) I understand you might not want to get too involved if you've spent your whole career in the field, but still very much hope I haven't seen the last of you. Thanks again for your contributions and the message. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

## Re: set/sit umlaut

Hello, Duoduoduo. You have new messages at LokiClock's talk page.
Message added 12:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

## Relative pronouns

Hi Duo,

I'm happy to avoid an edit war, but I also insist you returned a lot of babeless bath water ;) Phrases like your "Jack is the boy that Jenny fell in love with" have already appeared under the "zero pronoun" rubric ("Jack built the house that I was born in"), although in a perfect world these phrases with prepositions, dangling or not, should be introduced in a previous section about antecedents being subjects or objects of relative clauses. The section I deleted your passage from (!) is about prepositions preceding relative pronouns. Right?--Mardhil (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No, actually the section is not about prepositions preceding relative pronouns. The section is entitled "Use with preposition", and the edit concerns the use of the relative pronoun "that" with a preposition. The point of the edit is clear in the edit: that can be used as the object of the preposition in a relative clause if and only if the preposition is detached and appears at the end of the dependent clause. This point appears nowhere else in the article, and to omit the point would be to give an incomplete explanation of the use of relative pronouns with prepositions. Moreover, the fact that another example sentence appears in a different context to make a different point is irrelevant -- that sentence appears in the section entitled "Zero relative pronoun" only in contrast to an alternative wording without a relative pronoun, which is not the contrast being highlighted here. Duoduoduo (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

## Vandal

I think we're dealing with a sneaky vandal, numbers always changed by fixed increments I'm checking his edit log and will give the proper warnings. Thanks. -Vcelloho (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I made a mistake I'm fixing it now. I was trying to revert one further back, some of the ip users edit came through. There were a few name changes and individuals added in that I can't find any evidence exist. -Vcelloho (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm checking what I can and filling the rest with[citation needed]. -Vcelloho (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

## Ft. Myers schools

FGCU is not in the city. It's in unincorporated Lee County, about 10 miles or so south of the city. Barry had a branch in the city until earlier this year when they moved to a location about a mile or so south of the city. Nova Southeastern still has a campus in the city and I provided a link to it. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The article on Estero says "Florida Gulf Coast University is also located just outside of the Estero Planning District in Fort Myers.[4]" and "Estero is part of the Cape Coral–Fort Myers Metropolitan Statistical Area." But maybe you're right -- maybe these articles should only refer to the city limits and not the metro area. Duoduoduo (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Outside their planning district, but inside their Fire District. The confusion sometimes is that just looking at the address and seeing "Ft. Myers" is misleading. In any case, since we have a Lee County article, I think that is where the schools in the unincorporated areas properly belong. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Just thought I'd let you know there's an error message in the references section for the reference you just added. Duoduoduo (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

## Six Crises

Well done, was tired of seeing a redlink and never seemed to get together my Nixon sources to get it done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's bare bones right now -- I hope you can beef it up! Duoduoduo (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

## Congruence of all Hyperbolae

Hi Duos - I've noted lots of significant improvements you've made to the Hyperbola article. I question this statement though (not quite confidently): on your 12:29 24 June 2011 edit, you added an observation about congruence of all hyperbolae at line 37 (directly above graphic file Drini-Congruenthyperbolas.svg).

Every hyperbola is congruent to an origin-centered East-West opening hyperbola and to an origin-centered North-South opening hyperbola — that is, it can be rotated so that opens in the desired direction and can be translated (rigidly moved in the plane) so that it is centered at the origin.

At first I thought only rectangular hyperbolae (where a=b) share this congruence. Okay, but now I see what I missed, and I suggest this clarifying qualification:

Every hyperbola is congruent to an origin-centered East-West opening hyperbola having the same eccentricity (openness of its shape) and to an origin-centered North-South opening hyperbola with identical eccentricity — that is, it can be rotated so that it opens in the desired direction and can be translated (rigidly moved in the plane) so it is centered at the origin.

Article congruence explains: "... congruent figures have the same shape and size. ...either object can be repositioned to coincide precisely with the other object." This is the case for all parabolae; it works for hyperbolae only when they share the same value for $\epsilon$ , since this article informs us that the shape of a hyperbola is determined entirely by its eccentricity - so all hyperbolae sharing a given value of $\epsilon$ are shaped the same, and thus are congruent with one another. Bookerj (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest! My edit doesn't refer to the congruence of all hyperbolas -- it says every hyperbola is congruent to a hyperbola. But I like your wording as it is more specific. Please go ahead and put your revision in. Thanks. Duoduoduo (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I understood that you were involved in the creating of “Trigonometric interpretation of the roots” in the Wikipedia article on cubic where both images are related to the equations where p<0 only. This is an incompleteness which can be easily removed reducing the variable p≠0 to its unary operator sgn(p)=±1. Moreover single image can be considered not only as an interpretation but also as a tool for graphically obtained real roots of all equations where p≠0. The procedure enabling both goals follows and I would appreciate your comment on this stuff.

Graphical Function Explorer GFE (http://www.mathopenref.com/graphfunctions.html) seems to me suitable for unskilled beginners so I have prepared four graphs connecting hyperbolae with cubic equation using this tool. In order the coincidence with its default notation to be avoided capital X for unknown as well as a_3; a_2; a_1 and a_0 for variables of p_3(X) are chosen below. X=–R*x–a_2/(3a_3) for R=2sgn(q)sqrt|p/3| is a substitution transforming annulled 3rd power polynomial

p_3(X)=a_3X^3+a_2X^2+a_1X+a_0=0 to the equities 4x^3+3sgn(p)x=4q/a_3/R^3=0.5*|q/a_3|/|p/3|^1.5≥0 where 4q/a_3/R^3=cos3\theta≤1 or 4q/a_3/R^3=cosh3\theta>1 for p<0 and 4q/a_3/R^3=sinh3\theta≥0 for p>0.

These equities in terms of single nonnegative radical 4q/a_3/R^3 can be bisected on 2 ways:

1.) Horizontal line g(x)=4q/a_3/R^3 intersects f;h(x)=4x^3±3x and 2.) Sloped lines f(x)= 4q/a_3/R^3 +3x/4 and h(x)= 4q/a_3/R^3 –3x/4 intersect g(x)=x^3 where initial settings are: 4x^3–3x=1=cos3\theta=cosh3\theta=x_0=cos\theta =cosh\theta, x_1=cos120°=x_2=cos240°=–0,5 and to 4x^3+3x=7=sinh3\theta, x_0=sinh\theta=1 but x_1; 2=–0.5±i*1.5^0.5 are conjugate-complex numbers. Sliding a, b, c. d up-down accordingly to q & p and dragging cursor line we can get real roots of any (previously reduced) cubic where p≠0.

First image is very similar to the one at Wikipedia article but I prefer second one since g(x)=x^3 is basic parabola which can be easily constructed on the point by point basis.

Finally, there is completed Geometrical Interpretation (the roots flowchart) where initial setting is for all types of real roots:

East half of North oriented unit hyperbole if p>0 continuing with

Three arcs (pi/6) of unit circle for 4q/a_3/R^3≤1: arc(pi/2,2pi/3) skipping over cursor line x_1=x_2=–0.5 from y_1=sin(2pi/3)=0.866 to y_2=sin(4pi/3)=–0.866, arc(4pi/3,7pi/6) skipping over g(b=10)=0.5774x=tan(pi/6)x from x_2=cos(7pi/3)=–0.866 to x_0=cos(pi/6)=0.866 arc(pi/6,0) and finishing with

South half of East oriented unit hyperbole for 4q/a_3/R^3≥1 if p0 but continuing with d=–1 to West oriented hyperbole for p<0. The sliders a and b (initially set for p=0) can be used for radius-vector as well. GFE limitations disabled me to get desired image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drini-conjugatehyperbolas.svg completed with unit circle along with shading its three arcs mentioned above as well as the surfaces between asymptote, x-axis and south half of East oriented hyperbole with Light Turquoise but the surface between asymptote, y-axis and east half of North oriented hyperbole with Light Green could be a way how to emphasize five ranges of the real roots flowchart. Since Circle and Hyperbola are well sourced I see no reason an edit war to begin if this someone (skilled in drawing) would merge both within single image.

If you e-mail me back I´ll send you these four hyperlinks and any clarification needed.

Regards [e-mail address deleted] alias Stap188.127.120.236 (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

First, you have now altered the text of someone else's contribution on this page three different times, each time removing the LaTeX format. That is considered bad wiki-etiquette, and it is not a good way to get anyone to help you with your own comments. Second, Wikipedia policy is that people should not post their e-mail address for everyone to see, because someone who sees it might end up spamming you with unwanted e-mails. So in line with Wikipedia policy I have deleted your e-mail address.
You say both images are related to the equations where p<0 only. This is an incompleteness which can be easily removed reducing the variable p≠0 to its unary operator sgn(p)=±1. Moreover single image can be considered not only as an interpretation but also as a tool for graphically obtained real roots of all equations where p≠0. No, these graphs cannot be combined into a single image -- the trigonometric one works only when there exist three real roots (which only occurs when p is sufficiently negative); the one showing the real and imaginary parts of the complex roots in the real plane only works if some roots have imaginary parts, which conflicts with p being negative enough to give three real roots.
Perhaps your discussion of the relation of cubics and hyperbolas is related to this passage earlier in the article:
In the 11th century, the Persian poet-mathematician, Omar Khayyám (1048–1131)...found a geometric solution. In his later work, the Treatise on Demonstration of Problems of Algebra, he wrote a complete classification of cubic equations with general geometric solutions found by means of intersecting conic sections.[7][8]
If you can insert something that reproduces what Omar Khayyám did, as indicated in the sources [7] and [8], that might be a good addition to the article (not a replacement for the graphs I recently inserted, since they are different approaches, but rather an addition to the article). But you would need to make sure that what you insert is not original research.
Sorry I can't help you with the graphics -- I don't know anything about the graphics packages, and I had to get a lot of help in creating the graphs that I inserted. Duoduoduo (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

## Pythagorean triple

This message is regarding the article Pythagorean triple. |2a-b| should have the absolute value sign because 2a-b can be positive or negative. However, if a,b,c are in order, b-a and 2b-a are always positive, so they don't need absolute value signs. Georgia guy (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

But the article doesn't say that a<b. For example, according to the formula for generating triples (given earlier in the article), a could be < or > b. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
You mean, although I think of 3,4,5 some people think of both 3,4,5 and 4,3,5?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The formula the article gives for primitive triples is $a = m^2 - n^2 ,\ \, b = 2mn ,\ \, c = m^2 + n^2$. So for example m=4, n=1 gives (a, b, c)= (15, 8, 17). This sort of thing is commonplace. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
So even though the article says that there are 16 primitive Pythagorean triples with c < 100 there are actually 32?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Nope. E.g. (3, 4, 5) and (4, 3, 5) are the same triple (up to a reordering).
If you want, you could restore the parentheses, and in the first line of the section put in "with a<b". Either way is acceptable mathematically. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

## Fuss' theorem

Some six weeks ago we discussed if Fuss' theorem was an if and only if statement. Today I found a reference that it is and added it to the article Bicentric quadrilateral. Yours sincerely. Circlesareround (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

## voter id

Hey, thanks for the questions. I posted my responses on the talk page, so please let me know if anything else comes to mind.--Screwball23 talk 01:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

## Thanks

Thanks for your help with the editor on the L'Hopital page. Sometimes it is difficult to explain the policy to this type of person, at least, alone. On the other hand it seems it's not the first time someone has had to explain things to him... Rschwieb (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I get into these discussions with uncomprehending people, and I feel like I'm being hung out to dry when I know there are other people reading the exchange but no one chimes in to help. So I'm glad to help in a situation like this.
There is a partial element of truth in what he says: if anyone can see at a glance that a statement is totally logical, then fine, it doesn't need a source. But his material is hardly in that "at a glance" category. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

## Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Exponential growth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Log-linear model (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

## ratios

Of course, while a ratio, which compares two (or more!) numbers is not a fraction, there is a close relationship between a fraction and a ratio. The rule for testing whether two fractions are equal, called in grade school "cross multiply", is analogous to the old rule, no longer taught, that the product of the extremes equals the product of the means.

So, the only question is, in mentioning ratios in this article (as distinct from the article ratio), should we mention the ratio of the part to the whole or of the part to the other part. It seems to me conceptually clearer, and just as correct, to mention the ratio of the part ot the whole. Of course, you can also use a fraction to express the ratio of the part to the other part, but this does not work with improper fractions and in any case, given that beginners are often confused on the subject, "looks funny". On the other hand, if we have four equal parts, three of which make up a whole, then we can express that with the fraction 4/3, and the ratio of the amount we have to the whole is 4:3.

Given how much confusion exists, even on the part of grade school teachers, about fractions, and the very large number of students who turn to Wikipedia for help, I want to keep this article as clear as possible. There is a link to ratio for those who want to know more about that subject. Sadly, ratios are no longer taught until students get to calculus, if they ever do, while fractions are still taught, at least in some schools.

Thanks for your comments. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

## Imaginary number application

See my edit summary. These are fine additions at Complex number, but please don't forget to include the sources. Cheers and happy holidays! - DVdm (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Transferring this discussion to Talk: Imaginary number#Imaginary number application. Happy holidays! Duoduoduo (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

## A barnstar for you!

 The Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hey... again... I am really really sorry about that utterly misplaced accusation I made there. Please accept my apologies. - DVdm (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem! Duoduoduo (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

## removal of talkpage content

It's a good call and I support you, I was however trying to match the person's dialect and mood to help him articulate his concerns more fully. Sometimes, I can get people to open up and then make changes that they suggest which is really cool, because it results in a better, and vandal resistant article. But that guy may not come back anyhow, and it is a good edit that you made. (I usually only notice responses on my tp) Penyulap talk 18:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

## Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Relative direction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magnetic poles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

## your edit on Grammatical Aspect page

Dear Duoduoduo,

On May 4, 2011 you made the following edit of Aspect vs. tense chapter on Grammatical Aspect page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grammatical_aspect&diff=427421815&oldid=427420817

You decided to replace this phrase: Aspect is a somewhat difficult concept to grasp for the speakers of most modern Germanic languages, because they tend to conflate.

with this one: The Germanic languages combine the concept of aspect with the concept of grammatical tense.

The phrase you decided to cut out had been quoted in my article "Popular Misinterpretations & Equivocations with Disproofs" and in my brochure "English Language: Shaken And Stirred" as concisely describing the roots for many misinterpretations and equivocations of modern English grammar. Among them:

- misinterpretation of Latin ´habeo-factum-tense´ as such that can present ongoing actions, and hence misnaming the tense today known as ´Present Perfect';

- misinterpretation of the essence of English imperfect aspect which led to misnaming the whole aspect known today as ´Perfect Continuous/Progressive';

- misinterpretation of so called 'stative verbs' as such that may not represent imperfect aspect

That's just to name the most essential.

I would appreciate greatly explaining your reasons for the abovementioned edit of an important, sincere and brave confession made by someone other than you, whose honest words helped very much to sort out the extremely tangled English Grammar.

My name is Artem Ivantsov, BA in philology, fluent in 5 languages with 20 years of experience in languages-related work including teaching. May I know your name and your linguistic background? Besides, I have a feeling that you are a member of some English language forum. I´ll be thankful for telling me what forum I could find you at and under which nickname so I could ask you more questions on the issue. Thank you. Chetosco (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The passage Aspect is a somewhat difficult concept to grasp for the speakers of most modern Germanic languages is, as I said in my edit summary, an unsupported assertion. No citation to a Wikipedia-acceptable source was given, and I seriously doubt that any such Wikipedia-acceptable source exists, because backing up that assertion in a rigorous way would require doing a survey of a large number of speakers of each of the Germanic languages, defining "difficult to grasp", and obtaining results showing that for "most" Germanic languages, "speakers" (how many--a majority of speakers? all of them? the deleted passage didn't say) find it difficult to grasp.
By the way, your statements that the Present Perfect and Perfect Continuous/Progressive are misnamed appear to be original research and WP:Fringe, as does the statement that stative verbs may not represent the imperfect (sic) aspect; hence those statements cannot themselves go in Wikipedia. Also, I would mention that when you refer to the imperfect in English, you probably mean to refer to the imperfective. Duoduoduo (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

## your Grammatical Aspect page edit

There is no need in any survey to see that Aspect is a somewhat difficult concept to grasp for the speakers of most modern Germanic languages. The presence of such wicked phenomena as Present Perfect (Present Past) or Perfect Continuous (Perfect Imperfect) speaks for itself. The emergence of these self-contradicting terms was possible solely due to the "difficulty to grasp the concept of aspect". And the person whose quote you deleted had confessed in that openly, which is EXTREMELY important for understanding the problems of English grammar.

I never said I wanted my statements to go to Wikipedia.

And of course I meant to refer to Imperfect when I referred to Imperfect. There is no such thing as Imperfective aspect. The inexisting opposition of Imperfect and Imperfective is another pseudolinguistic thing entailed by the difficulty to grasp the concept of aspect.

You didn't say your name and linguistic background. This place doesn't seem appropriate for a discussion, but it definitely must be continued. Please, don't insist on your incognito, Wikipedia is not a place for spy-games. Thank you. Chetosco (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

## Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Grammatical aspect. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As you well know as an administrator, it's bad form to give a template warning to an experienced editor. Your template says use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors.--that is precisely what I was doing before you froze into place a version that had no consensus, added repeatedly by a person who never once participated on the talk page. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

## dispute over editing

Hi I still expect your answer to my previous message which you seem to be ignoring. Please, note, that I have restored what had been written by an American multilingual linguist and what later was deleted by you with no explanation of what kind of right you have to do such a deletion. Still waiting for you to present yourself and to confirm your linguistic background if any. Artem Ivantsov BA in philology, 5 languages fluency Cc: rjanag Chetosco (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Can't you read what I wrote on the talk page? Duoduoduo (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

## Linguistic Editing

Hi Duo

I agreed with your edit. My longer response was intended more to point out why I think the process may have become heated on the other end and also to point out some of my own and my observed frustrations with editing of linguistics articles here on wikipedia.

Whether or not we all agree on whatever things are at a given time, there are some rather fishy things that go on here especially regarding linguistics and even along the lines of original research, some editors create articles that are in fact their own original research (rather their own interpretation of a topic) and back up their point of view with lists of non-sourced "sources" while at the same time disputing alternative views of others and calling them original research when they're no less accepted views than the argued one's.

It hurts all of us, but mostly it's potentially harmful to all those who use Wikipedia as their trusted reference.

Thanks for trying to be diplomatic while editing with a new user. Hopefully this will work itself out. Drew.ward (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts too! Duoduoduo (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

## Your map workshop request

Hi. I completed your request. I also added the image to Voter ID laws (United States). If you'd like to see any changes, please let me know. Cheers. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

## Request for assistance: verject

Hi Duo,

I'd like to request your assistance. An article I've posted has been nominated for deletion and is under review. The discussion is thus far not being had on linguistic or academic grounds and I fear that consensus will be delete precluding wikipedia from access to this concept even before it's had the chance to stand on its on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Verject#Verject

This is the discussion link. I have pointed out that in linguistics it is quite common for concepts (and in fact many articles on WP) not to have very many sources because the concepts are not widely published about and because the field is very specialized and publication often limited to those current trends that are popular in research fields at the time. Feel free to contact me via email drew.ward @ calleteach . org if you'd like to discuss the concept with me but if not, (whether you support keep or delete) I would appreciate someone else from within out community chiming in on this before it gets deleted on non-linguistic grounds. ThanksDrew.ward (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Drew. As you know, I believe in holding to the Wikipedia community's standard that Wikipedia simply reports on what is "out there" to a substantial extent in the non-Wikipedia world. While it's possible that the concept of verject may someday catch on in the linguistics literature, to my knowledge it has not done so yet, so it apparently does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. However, I'm not going to say that on the AfD page, because others have already said it there and because it's possible that you might come up with enough solid references to show that it's notable after all -- but you need to do so fast, in the next few days, before they close out the AfD discussion and delete it. (Incidentally, I can certainly see why you got frustrated by the absence of due diligence on the part of the person who deleted it as a hoax!)
My advice for future article creation would be this: Don't save any version of the article until you've put everything into it that you can -- that way, no one can mistake incompleteness for a hoax or for non-notability. By putting "everything into it that you can" I mean all relevant citations (with exact page references) that you are aware of, and going beyond a simple definition (which is not sufficient for Wikipedia) to include a paraphrasal of one of the source's analyses of the concept, why it is important, how it relates to other concepts, etc. (and also linking to the new article from other Wikipedia pages).
Good luck with Verject! Duoduoduo (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

## Thank you!

 The Reference Desk Barnstar For taking the time to help me out with this problem, that I was struggling with, when desperately behind schedule for a presentation! And wellcome to the reference desk! I've taken the liberty of adding your username to the refdesk regulars list. Your insightful contributions are much appreciated, and I hope you will stay for a long time! NorwegianBlue talk 19:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Duoduoduo (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

And thanks for additional advice!. Full reply on my talk page. --NorwegianBlue talk 23:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

## Thank you!

Hi Duo, Thanks for quickly pointing out my mistake in an edit in Positive definite matrix. That was a very hasty generalization my part. My bad! I will be more careful next time. (Manoguru (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC))

No problem! Duoduoduo (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

## Cubic_graph_special_points.svg

Hi Duoduoduo, Many thanks for your constructive comments on File_talk:Cubic_graph_special_points.svg. I've just responded to them and updated the graphic accordingly. By the way, were you also the anonymous user who added more comments after the ones under your ID? To keep the thread together, please reply on that page. Thanks, cmɢʟee 09:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

## Thanks!

My thanks for your responses to my question about the parabola at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. Your information about finding tangents to polynomials, and particularly the paper by Charles Strickland-Constable, is proving to be very helpful. Best regards. Dolphin (t) 06:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You're quite welcome! Glad you found it helpful. Duoduoduo (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

## Disambiguation link notification for November 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Overdetermined system (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Matrix algebra
Underdetermined system (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Matrix algebra

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

## TB

Hello, Duoduoduo. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Why_is_the_equator_not_a_large_desert.3F.
You can remove this notice at any time.

## Disambiguation link notification for December 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Extraneous variable, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Regression and Fit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

## Disambiguation link notification for December 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited PRESS statistic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cross-validation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

## Sensitivity Analysis Edit

Hi, thanks for your edit on the sensitivity analysis page. I agree that linear regression is only linear in the parameters and can therefore cope with nonlinear responses. However, to my knowledge, the application of regression analysis to sensitivity analysis requires the use of standardised regression coefficients. I believe that these are only meaningful when the regression is the most basic simple linear form (i.e. straight lines, planes and hyperplanes). Otherwise if we fit a more complicated model, such as a polynomial, or other basis functions, how do we measure sensitivity? I have not seen a sensitivity analysis so far that uses regression analysis with other basis functions (unless we count emulators, but that relies on variance-based measures of sensitivity). If you can point out where I am wrong on this, please do. If you prefer to discuss on the Sensitivity Analysis talk page, that is fine, I only wrote here because I am not sure if you are monitoring that talk page. Thanks again WillBecker (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll transfer this discussion to the article's talk page. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

## Disambiguation link notification for January 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Autoregressive model, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cross-validation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

## Disambiguation link notification for January 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seasonal adjustment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dummy variable (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

## An adult !

Thank you thank you thank you. We are not agreed. I may not prevail. But you talk to me coherently as though I were your colleague. Over the last two years, I get my ears pinned back by Rjensen regularly in southern and military history, and I always love it because he stipulates, reasons, takes exception with sources -- which suggests another line of research ... even if I learn more just to argue on another front. -- think daughter Meg in the Tower of London trying to out-argue Sir Thomas More in "A man for all seasons". I refer to it as "my professor's office hours", I can drop in without an appointment, and he reveals new avenues of independent research. Anyhow, I want to thank you sincerely, personally. I'm making up a contrary reply to you at 'territories' soon. Thank you again, I may not quit Wikipedia yet. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

## Splits

Thanks; I don't ever think to use Google Scholar; I'll take a look. Tarcil (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

## sorry

I think I missed your marry-merry-mary coment on my talk page. Was it answered? See the Mary marry merry merger link which covers various mergers and let me know if there were other questions. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think you did see it, because you answered it in the thread on the language refdesk.
Two things surprised me about your answer. First, you said that in unmerged dialects "Murray has the vowel of "must" /mʌ-/". I've never noticed that -- I thought everyone pronounced it with the vowel in "merge". The other thing was that you said "In most dialects with the Mary-marry-merry merger they take the /ɛɪ/, and sound like "Mary" to those without the merger". I have the merger and pronounce them all as /ɛ/, so that surprised me. Duoduoduo (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

## Unreferenced assertion on page Subjunctive mood

Hello, on 11 July 2011, you added the following statement to the article on Subjunctive mood:

The terms "present subjunctive" and "past subjunctive", such as appear in the following table, refer to the form and not to the time of action expressed. (Not shown in the table is the pluperfect subjunctive, which uses the had plus past participle construction when the counterfactual time of action is the past.)

As far as I know, this is totally incorrect. The past subjunctive is only used to indicate a past tense subjunctive mood, never a present tense subjective mood. The present subjunctive may refer to the future, however. Perhaps this is the source of the confusion. Oxford Dictionaries also seems to disagree with your assertion. Thus I must ask you to provide a citation in a primary reference for this assertion. Considering this assertion has been published on Wikipedia for approximately 21 months, you are likely to find many non-primary (e.g. Web page) references agreeing with you by now. TheTruthWasOutThere (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm transferring this discussion to the article's talk page, which is the correct place for it since others may want to participate: Talk:Subjunctive mood#Unreferenced assertion. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

## Disambiguation link notification for February 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States Virgin Islands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charlotte Amalie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

## Hi

Hi, i just wanna say sorry because i confused you with another user. Friends? --89.249.2.53 (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Friends! Duoduoduo (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

## Methodology (statistics) related articles

Hi 3 x Duo ;; - )

As a good statistician, I feel I have collected a good enough sample of (more than 3, actually 11) observations of you acting as a good custodian of this article (that I happened to contribute the current table to and a few grammatical errors that were taken care of by you aftermath).

Encouraged by this, I'd like to draw your attention to some other methodology (statistics) related articles that have been recently changed by me a bit as you can see here, such as the one about measurement, and about - already above mentioned - sample, and last but not least the one about "Growth in a Time of Debt". I'd appreciate your input and/or comments to the latter, especially. Thank you. --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll take a look at them. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

## Re nonparametric

Here is a paper discussing this matter [[1]] I am obviously missing something in the proof. I have copied this ref to the discussion page of the article: I am pasting it here in case you might have moved on. DrMicro

## Disambiguation link notification for May 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bivariate analysis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Correlation coefficient (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

## unincorporated Alaska

I have opened a discussion section at Talk:Unincorporated territories of the United States on the subject of including Alaska in the "unincorporated" list with a note it was judicially declared incorporated at Rassmussen when the Court observed Congress had made citizens and taxed them there. Please join in the discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

## June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Simple random sample may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
• suppose ''N'' college students want to get a ticket for a basketball game, but there are only ''X''<''N'' tickets for them, so they decide to have a fair way to see who gets to go. Then, everybody is
• 2. In the case that any selected person is returned to the selection pool (i.e., can be picked more than once:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

## File:Trigonometric interpretation of a cubic with three real roots.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Trigonometric interpretation of a cubic with three real roots.JPG, 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. DVdm (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC) .

Hi Duo3, It looks like we finally have an svg-version. It also looks like your first baby should be put to sleep. See file File:Trigonometric interpretation of a cubic equation with three real roots.svg.

.

Cheers - DVdm (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

## A thought

Given your background you might find the page Qualitative variation to be of some minor interest. DrMicro (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

## Disambiguation link notification for August 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Feasible region, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vertex (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

## Disambiguation link notification for August 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Linear programming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plane (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

## August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Elasticity (economics) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
• change in the causal variable results in an infinite change in the responding variable (the ''infinitely elastic'' case in which the elasticity equals [[infinity]].

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

## Disambiguation link notification for August 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Limiting case, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Point (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

## Economics terminology that differs from common usage

 The Special Barnstar Hi Duoduoduo! I stumbled across Economics terminology that differs from common usage and just wanted to express my thanks. This is not only a great article but it's one that I would have never thought to write or thought about being written. Of course, as soon as you see it the benefit is incredibly clear and obvious. Thank you! Jalexander--WMF 09:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I'm glad you like it! Duoduoduo (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

## Basis?

Hi, Professor. Just wondering about this contribution. Can you tell me how you came up with a meaning, given that you say you don't know Spanish?

Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the OP asked about the meaning of the English phrase "Let it be", and I told her what it means via some equivalent phrases in English. I also told her that I don't know Spanish, the implication being that I can't answer her other question about what the exact translation into Spanish is, and I also can't give an idiomatic translation into Spanish. Note that the antecedent of "it" appearing in her second sentence is her title phrase "Let it be". Duoduoduo (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. What confused me was your opening phrase, which I now understand had no bearing on the rest of the sentence, but it reads like the two parts are very much connected, and the overall impression was that you were translating a Spanish expression into English despite not knowing the former language. Hence my query. Thanks for the explanation. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Jack of Oz! I know that you didn't ask me to chime in, but I noticed this in passing. First let me emphasize that I understand that you were completely satisfied with Duoduoduo's response about translation. And second, just in case Duoduoduo should read this, I have not come here to cast aspersions, but to praise you, which I will do momentarily, in a separate section, despite the grim evidence that you may not be around to read any of this. So, as I was saying, JackofOz, it is actually common practice on Wiktionary for editors to translate and create entries in languages with which they have little or no familiarity. Yes, that surprised me too! And yes, I realize that this is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. If anything, I would think language competency when writing a dictionary, i.e. Wiktionary, would be more important than for explaining context of a borrowed phrase or term here! I just wanted to share that with both of you, as you seem friendly. I have been waiting for some logically motivated reason to mention this for months, and avoid gratuitous disclosure. I shall return with the URLs later, in case you are curious. --FeralOink (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

## Integer triangle rev

Explain why you undid my rev please ref 1.--Billymac00 (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

When I made the edit I explained it on the talk page here. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

## Disambiguation link notification for October 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baslaney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laba (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

## Disambiguation link notification for October 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Intertemporal portfolio choice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ARMA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

## November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Karuli may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
• .<ref>http://www.fallingrain.com/world/PK/4/Karuli.html Location of Karuli - Falling Rain Genomics]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

## Beal's conjecture

Your recent editing history at Beal's conjecture shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. GiantSnowman 20:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You made three reverts. That is not following BRD, that is (on the verge of) violating 3RR. GiantSnowman 12:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
If the other editor refused to engage on the article talk page then you should have gone to WP:ANEW as soon as possible. Regardless of the 'righteousness' of your cause, you should not have edit warred at all - no excuses. GiantSnowman 13:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Experienced editors should know better - and another editor even suggested you be blocked for your behaviour, so I feel my warning was more than fair. GiantSnowman 13:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I've thought about this for a little over 24 hours now, and here's my conclusion.

(1) You warned me that I was currently engaged in an edit war. No, I was currently waiting for administrators to do something about the situation, after my having taken it to the administrators' noticeboard.

(2) You warned me not to violate 3RR, and warned me that one can be blocked for showing the intention of violating it. But I had not violated 3RR and it was clear that I had no intention of doing so, given that I am the one who brought the situation to the attention of administrators.

(3) You warned me instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. But I had already done just that; my talk page edit was not answered.

(4) You informed me that You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard. But you knew that I had already done so; that's how you knew about the situation.

(5) You say Regardless of the 'righteousness' of your cause .... Your use of quotes is in error -- I did not refer to the 'righteousness' of my cause.

(6) I'm not getting paid enough to stick around for this kind of thing. I had long accepted that fighting the vandals, and the people who view Wikipedia as a place to self-publish their math, is a thankless task. But to be rebuked for not doing it in a way that you consider to be perfect enough is too much. You show no hint of thanking me for thwarting this self-publisher, even though if I had not done so his self-published math assertions would now be in Wikipedia, and you show no hint of thanking me for bringing the situation to the attention of administrators. Think about that -- is Wikipedia better off with that stuff in or out? Because of me it's out, at least until he puts it back in after his block.

Thanks to you, I've had it, and I'll no longer be working to make Wikipedia an even better site than it is. As a result, there will be more unreverted vandalism, more unreverted self-published math, fewer grammatical errors being corrected, fewer articles being created on worthwhile topics, fewer articles being clarified or extended.

I know, I know -- you don't care. But you should, assuming you care about Wikipedia. Take another look at the spate of recent news articles on the declining number of regular contributors to Wikipedia, and consider the foremost reason given: the rigidity of some administrators (a minority in my opinion -- most are very good) that leads them to lose the forest for the trees. In this case the trees were whether I went to the admin noticeboard after one or after three reverts. The forest was that I thwarted a self-publisher who was abusing Wikipedia for his own ends.

Goodbye,all -- it's been a nice productive run! Duoduoduo (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You are quitting because I issued you with a 3RR warning after you made 3 reverts in less than 24 hours? I'm sorry but WP:DIVA applies here. However, I hope you re-consider. GiantSnowman 20:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I dunno, I thought Duoduoduo's post was pretty clear that what Duoduoduo objects to is the use of an inappropriate template message instead of a thoughtful approach tailored to the situation. There's even an essay about it: WP:DTR. --JBL (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

## Please look at a proposed edit for an article

Hiya. I saw you did reorganization on congruence (geometry) on which I worked recently and was grateful (not so good at that). I also liked that you added other congruences - so it is not just triangle congruences in 2d.

If you have a few minutes, could you look at an edit I wish to propose to y-intercept. It is at User:Lfahlberg/sb_y-intercept. The y-intercept article actually has most of this information, but has a request for citations. I added (probably many too many), reorganized it and added examples with images. I know 8 is too many, but 4 didn't cover the examples I thought it needed and once you go over 4, you might as well go to 8. Rows of 4 images look good on a tablet or ipad and on a regular computer monitor. (I am a visual learner so am big on images.)

If you think the current article is fine and just needs (some of) the citations, I will only propose that. (I wrote this article mainly because I am translating wikipedia math articles and I work better in English so it has served its purpose for me.)

I appreciate your time reading this letter. Lfahlberg (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - I just read your note above. I do know how you feel. Lfahlberg (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)