User talk:Fgnievinski

Jump to: navigation, search
 Hello, Fgnievinski! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Scientizzle 20:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

TODO (as soon as I'm allowed to edit):

add "symbolically" to Easter
move/rename Global climate model to General circulation models.
remove merge template at climate model and General circulation model.

probation on homeopathy articles

I'm making you aware that Homeopathy-related articles and the editors editing them are under article probation. Please be careful when making controversial edits and make sure to discuss them first on the talk page. See also Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation --Enric Naval (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

September 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Phasor, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Talk:Phasor was moved to Talk:Phasor (disambiguation) by Fgnievinski (u) (t) redirecting article to non-existant page on 2009-09-05T02:36:20+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Signal-to-noise ratio

I like what you've done with Signal-to-noise ratio, well done. I'd been trying to improve it, but had got kinda stuck. It's good to have a fresh pair of eyes on the article! GyroMagician (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Transcendent ←→ transcendence

Generally we ask that merge requests be accompanied by a rationale, given on the talk page. Since discussion should be centralized, one of the two talk pages should direct readers to the discussion at the main talk page. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

WBC funding

Look. For the second time, I'm going to remove your edits for being inappropriate in tone. I opened a thread at Talk:Westboro Baptist Church#Funding. Before you add this text again, discuss your edits. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange

Please be aware that all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are subject to a "one revert rule" (1RR). That means an editor may not make more than one revert to an article page in a 24-hour period.

For general information about revert restrictions, please see WP:Edit warring. For more information about the revert restrictions that apply to articles related to the Israel–Palestine conflict, please see WP:ARBPIA#Further remedies.

This note isn't meant to suggest you've done something wrong, just to inform you of the 1RR rule so you don't accidentally break it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Decibel

I am delighted that you wanted (in this edit) to copy material I had written on the talk page into the article. Unfortunately, it comes from a conversation where I am trying to persuade another user not to insert their own sythesis into the article. It would really not be a good idea if my own unsourced synthesis were to appear in the article at this time, consequently I have reverted it. Something backed up by sources though, would be perfectly acceptable. SpinningSpark 09:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am interested in the reasons why you consider the calculation rules inferred from current practice "overkill". Usually "overkill" means: too complex for the intended purpose. The rules are simply the following:

(a) Proper rule: x dB = 10^(x/10)
(b) "User guide": x dB is just a number that combines the with all units in the familiar way. Example: 10 = 10 dB and 20 dBW = 100 W hence 10 x 100 W = 1000 W is the same as 10 dB x 20 dBW = 30 dBW. The same holds for the more "complicated" dBW/Hz/K and so on

Meanwhile I also verified that basic high school mathematics, in the US known as Algebra 2 or Algebra II, is the only background needed, as it contains exponential and logarithmic functions. See Algebra 2 or II under Math Education Standards and Math education in the US. At this time, I am confident that there is no simpler rule that reflects current (or "modern") practice. Any comments? Boute (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Boute, thanks for following up on that. Well, I said "might be seen as overkill". I myself don't find it difficult, I actually find it easier to follow a well-defined recipe as you have laid down rather than trying to clarify in my head an otherwise messy calculation. Now, I guess people reject your formulation because it is unfamiliar to them. And to be honest, if all they are doing is combining a decibel quantity in a given unit (say, dB (re 1 W)) with another, unitless decibel quantity (such as antenna gain with respect to an isotropic antenna), then business as usual -- simply summing numerical values in decibels -- is indeed simpler than your formulation, and still correct, since the units are trivial. They are thinking more like engineers than mathematicians, i.e., worrying more about the numerical answer than the method or consistency. I can tell you first hand, the way decibels is taught in colleges and universities, is you only care about the numerical value and the units, you just hope for the best! This is a very unfortunate situation, but that's reality -- and the other editors are right when they reject your novel formulation on the basis that it's not the way the majority of experts explain the subject in textbooks. In a sense, I feel like you are ahead of your time -- and Wikipedia can't recognize it.
Now going back to the current situation, I'm sure it'd have been rectified much sooner were we dealing with editors having better education in mathematics. We need patience. This is just one more case of numerous similar in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Expert_retention and, for a good joke, Wikipedia:Astronomer_vs_Amateur. I'm trying to reach a compromise solution: let them add the numerical values as they are used to, then attack the units issue and have them realize how hairy the problem is.
By the way, are you familiar with the Mathcad software? It is capable of handling units automatically. I found this textbook which seems to implement your formulation, including the postfix operator interpretation and everything, check it out: [1], [2] Fgnievinski (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the reference to the Mathcad book. Unfortunately, I could not find anything there on the decibel, just on the classical units (treated in the manner normally used in physics).
Please see Fig. 4.33, p.94 in the first ref.; and a note on p.91 in second ref.Fgnievinski (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. The first ref is not yet available to me. The note on p.91 in second ref is significant in designating the decibel as a scaling function, which it is, and not as a "unit", which is a contentious designation (as mentioned in the BIPM standard for the SI, page 127). Boute (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
A very central issue to me is simplicity. In the formulation I described, the equation x dB = 10^(x/10) is the only thing one needs to know about the decibel: it is both a definition (of dB) and yields all the calculation rules simply the properties of the defining expression, for instance
• the calculation x dB x y dB = 10^(x/10) x 10^(y/10) = = 10^((x + y)/10) = (x + y) dB
• yields the rule x dB x y dB = (x + y) dB
Hence the "arguments" are added in exactly the way people are used to for decibels. So in what sense can the traditional way be simpler than the rule just derived (even when considering "trivial" units)?
In the sense that you need to explain a lot more than simply x + y, which for some very restricted but common cases is all that the engineer needs to know.Fgnievinski (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
For a fair comparison: the traditional view is not simply x + y but x dB + y dB, and further requires explaining why adding dB expressions corresponds to multiplying power ratios. There is no way around exponential and logarithmic functions, since they are the essence. So in this particular aspect the traditional approach requires no less explanation. In view of the following (the level concept), it actually requires much more. In fact, the standardization documents introduced a crucial error (conceptually, of no pragmatic consequence) in trying to reflect the original decibel definitions. They replaced log with lg, depriving the level concept from its abstract essence, and resulting in B = 1, eliminating all chances for mathematical consistency; see CEI/IEC 60027-3, page 13, the remark after equation (8).
Incidentally: your "return to the recommendations in the standards" by using the dB (re W) etc. convention is well-meant, but when used to write expressions like dB (re W/Hz/K) it only emphasizes the awkwardness of a convention that I have never seen used in practice. Boute (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Fundamentally, according to the "traditional" definitions as stated in the original papers (Hartley, 1924) the decibel does not express a power ratio but a level difference, related logarithmically but without specified base. The decibel and the neper correspond to specific choices of base. In fact, the level itself is defined nowhere; only its value expressed in decibel or in neper is knowable. The early papers tried to express all this in a rather clumsy way, which may be the source of all subsequent confusion. Indeed, the "traditional" decibel inherits all its "bewildering" (Horton, 1954) and "elusive" (Chapman and Ellis, 1998) characteristics from the level notion. So the traditional view on the decibel is not simple in any sense, and certainly not the simplest possible.
Agreed; but although unfortunate, this situation remains the status quo, and as such must be represented in Wikipedia. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The satellite communications engineers have changed the status quo (if there ever was any) since the 1980's. The talk:decibel pages indicate that most editors do not read the literature; some even designated dBK etc. as "something I made up". It is significant that no one thus far dared answering the pertinent question: should Wikipedia reflect current practice or the status quo of 1950? Boute (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Why most people don't even see the problem is due to the pragmatic simplicity of the decibel: take 10 times the logarithm in base 10 of a given power ratio, and write dB after it. Done. However, this is not a definition, since it does not answer the question: what is 30 dB (or what does it mean)?
• Traditional answer: the level difference corresponding to a power ratio of 1000. What is level? Answer: that is not simple to explain.
• Answer with the x dB = 10^(x/10) definition: simply the value 1000 (indeed, 30 dB = 10^(30/10) = 10^3 = 1000).
Maybe for the Wikipedia article one should really propose the original definition, which many other editors seem to advocate without having read it. Then we really would have utter confusion, perhaps resulting in catharsis. Boute (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The concern is that, whatever explanation is given, it must be in harmony with the mindless practice currently adopted -- it's a pragmatics vs. semantics problem.Fgnievinski (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The satellite communications engineers have long abandoned the mindless practice; so it is not really "currrently adopted" any more. Boute (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Square root of a matrix

Hi, you recently added to Square root of a matrix:

(If A is real and symmetric, then V is orthogonal and we can avoid the inverse: $R = V S V^{T}$.)

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that this is only true if each of the eigenvectors is normalized so the sum of its squared elements equals unity. Is this right? If so, could you add that stipulation to your edit? Thanks! Duoduoduo (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up. I added a caveat. Although it's not what you mentioned above. Fgnievinski (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I checked, and what I said above is correct. so I'll put that in. Duoduoduo (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The numerical experiment below seems to disprove it:
n = 4
temp = rand(n)
A = temp + temp'  % make it symmetric
eig2sqrtm = @(V,D) V * diag(sqrt(diag(D))) * V';
[V,D] = eig(A)
sum(diag(D).^2)
As = eig2sqrtm(V,D),  max(max(abs(As * As - A)))


see output: n =

    4


temp =

     0.29329      0.92102      0.09234      0.96235
0.74785      0.82847      0.67296      0.40207
0.53474      0.52299      0.71043      0.18692
0.32792      0.12268      0.98087      0.38935


A =

     0.58657       1.6689      0.62708       1.2903
1.6689       1.6569        1.196      0.52475
0.62708        1.196       1.4209       1.1678
1.2903      0.52475       1.1678      0.77871


V =

     0.69813      0.46787      0.25164      0.47999
-0.43155      -0.2922      0.61819      0.58841
0.26131     -0.59386      -0.5739      0.49968
-0.50803      0.58569     -0.47451      0.41678


D =

     -1.1493            0            0            0
0      0.36355            0            0
0            0      0.82321            0
0            0            0       4.4056


ans =

       21.54


As =

     0.67302 +    0.52249i      0.65151 -    0.32298i      0.20485 +    0.19557i      0.47678 -    0.38022i
0.65151 -    0.32298i       1.1249 +    0.19965i      0.39987 -    0.12089i       0.1454 +    0.23504i
0.20485 +    0.19557i      0.39987 -    0.12089i       1.0355 +   0.073203i      0.47448 -    0.14232i
0.47678 -    0.38022i       0.1454 +    0.23504i      0.47448 -    0.14232i      0.77572 +    0.27669i


ans =

  1.792e-015


Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eusociality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mole rats (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) 11:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Median absolute deviation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reciprocal (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) 11:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Uniform distribution (continuous), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RMS (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) 11:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Statistical dispersion, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Spread and Scatter (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) 10:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Move section portions and Template:Move section portions from

Hi. I was assuming that you created these templates

because you were not aware of

but then I saw you made this edit that added the section parameter to {{Move portions from}}. Please use the older templates rather than the redundant new ones. I know that parameter isn't documented, I'll work on fixing that deficiency. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point: {{Move section portions}} produces a smaller box than {{Move portions}}. Your edits replacing the former for the latter are disruptive. Please undo. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Maybe we can make the box smaller in the existing template? Wbm1058 (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
If you know how to do that, by all means please go ahead. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I modified Template:Move portions to pass through the small parameter to the lower-level template, see [diff], and updated Sample mean and sample covariance (diff]. You just need to use a couple extra prameters to get the desired result. Is that OK? Wbm1058 (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Almost perfect: can we have {{Move section portions}} as a redirect for {{move portions|#1|section=y|small=left}}?
Otherwise please undo the modifications in the articles using that template. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks! Fgnievinski (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Maxwell's equations

Nice to see someone is moving/reducing the masses of content from that article into more specialized/suited ones. Thank you! I didn't do so myself to prevent the risk shredding the efforts of others near the time. I agree that the history section of Maxwell's equations would make a good separate article too.

But I disagree with this edit, your deletion reference books. It wasn't "just a collection of links". These are actual texts on the subject that would make the reader more aware of the literature (Landau and Lifshitz? Feynman? Griffiths? Jackson?). This doesn't seem to comply with "WP:LINKFARM". I reverted it. Please don't delete good refs. Thanks, M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 21:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Where could we seek a third opinion? Fgnievinski (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The WikiProject Physics talk page. Cheers, M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 22:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time. Fgnievinski (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Inverse trigonometric functions

Hello! I am Wamiq. Just wanted to know whose names do you require there in the article, because you added the {{who?}} tag to the authors. I have their names. Regards.

—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 08:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Please cite a source accordingly. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 09:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that this notation is used in our books, but I cannot find an online source which says that. What am I to cite, then?
—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 17:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be online; use Template:Cite_book. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Decibel, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Reciprocal and Receiver (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) 12:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

SMAP

There was a consensus determined this year that decided that the band was the primary topic and should not be disambiguated. Now you have created an unnecessary mess because you have not bothered to look at the talk page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop "fixing" everything to go along with your undiscussed and controversial move. The pages will all be at their original titles shortly.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

At least file the requested move after your original move has been properly fixed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dielectric, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High vacuum (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) 10:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Software GNSS receiver, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CLI (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) 11:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.iso.org/sites/JCGM/JCGM-introduction.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Earth's magnetic field

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Earth's magnetic field you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jamesx12345 -- Jamesx12345 (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ultrashort pulse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Modulus (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) 12:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Earth's magnetic field

Hi. I'm currently reviewing Earth's magnetic field at Talk:Earth's magnetic field/GA1, and have suggested a few changes that might help improve the article. In general it is good, although some more citations are needed in places. Many thanks. Jamesx12345 16:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time! Fgnievinski (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Fgnievinski, as the main contributor to Earth's magnetic field, I thank you for your vote of confidence in this article. However, before nominating another article, I recommend you look at Good_article_nominations/Instructions. In particular, note this passage:

Most reviews will require involvement by an article editor during the review process. We recommend checking that someone is available to do this before nominating an article or assure that you will be able to respond to any comments made by the reviewer during the review. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination.

Since you did not make any of the changes requested by Jamesx12345 (talk · contribs), he was about to close the nomination before I was even aware of it. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, step 1 is undue red tape; I intended to follow step 5 instead: At the end of the review, the reviewer will either pass or fail the article. If your nomination has failed, you can take the reviewer's suggestions into account and renominate the article. Fgnievinski (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
To me, that seems like more red tape, because you need to renominate it (and then wait for a second review). That also wastes the time of reviewers (who are in short supply and must devote a lot of effort to each review). RockMagnetist (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Earth's magnetic field

The article Earth's magnetic field you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Earth's magnetic field for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jamesx12345 -- Jamesx12345 (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Aha

Is this the F.G. Nievinski I know who used to work for a certain, sometimes ill-tempered, blond professor with an interest in snow depth? siafu (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The one and only! :D Fgnievinski (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Telemeter

Are you intending to provide a rationale for this proposal on the talk page? If you are I will probably oppose (depending on what you say). If not I intend to remove the templates. SpinningSpark 11:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Done: Talk:Telemeter#Telemeter_is_a_rangefinder. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Length, distance, or range meter

The article Length, distance, or range meter has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

may not meet WP:NOTABILITY

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --[[Tariqmudallal · my talk]] 22:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Total electron content, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cross section (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) 20:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Threshold of originality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brow (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) 09:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposals

Hi, you put several proposed merge tags on a number of articles. It would be perhaps be helpful if you would explain in the appropriate places (by clicking the "discuss" links) what exactly you are proposing. As the different proposals are kind of related, you could also centralize the discussion in one place and provide a link to there from the others. --Randykitty (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged with duplication, that's the reason. Fgnievinski (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• I think you missed my point, which is that you didn't provide any rationale for your proposal(s). --Randykitty (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Geodesics on an ellipsoid

Thanks for your comments on this Geodesics on an ellipsoid. It is currently under review at Talk:Geodesics_on_an_ellipsoid/GA1. I would appreciate your commenting on the review so far and your adding your own opinion. Thanks for your help. cffk (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pedal curve, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Line and Locus (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) 08:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge 'Cooperative Learning' and 'Collaborative Learning'

Back in October you proposed merging Cooperative learning and Collaborative learning without starting a discussion. This discussion has now started and I think your input would be helpful. Jojalozzo 23:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Head start (positioning), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Positioning (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) 09:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Badge

Hi,

You requested speedy deletion of Badge under CSD G6, stating that the page was obstructing a page move. May I ask what page move you had in mind? Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

List of types of badges Fgnievinski (talk) 05:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Why it's not a G6 speedy??? Fgnievinski (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok. I've just double-checked the article's history, and cannot really grasp why it was moved from Badge to List of types of badges in the first instance. This might not be a G6 is the strictest sense, because the recent move you propose to undo might have had a good reason. Still, I cannot see what that reason might have been, so I'll move the page for you. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Next time, please ask before undoing. Fgnievinski (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jacobian matrix and determinant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Regression (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) 09:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clean URL, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whitespace (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) 09:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

K-means clustering

You added the statement "Jenks natural breaks optimization: k-means applied to univariate data" to this article.

However, if I am not mistaken, the original use case of Lloyd was univariate, wasn't it?

This sounds as if k-means would not work with univariate data. I don't know much about Jenks, so maybe there are some other differences (does it sort the data first?) that make it faster for univariate data? --Chire (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

My only point is that Jenks is a special case of the more general k-means; I'm not familiar with Lloyd's, sorry. The first two should be at least inter-linked, which was not the case before. Fgnievinski (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't object the link; the description should just be improved; but I'm not familiar with Jenks. Lloyd is the classic 2-phase approach everybody uses: reassign to nearest center, update center estimation - which of course also works in univariate data. He did pulse code modulation, where his variate was the voltage, and k was known beforehand as the number of voltage levels used for transmission. k-means clustering can help recognizing the signal even when the exact voltage drop (line quality, weather conditions etc.) is hard to predict. --Chire (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to improve this easily. The current link description is not incorrect. If there's any inconsistency more pressing, it'd be to merge Lloyd's and k-means. Fgnievinski (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I had proposed that before, but there were good arguments to keep them separate, see Talk:K-means clustering#Merge proposal: Lloyd's seems to be also used outside of clustering. After all, it is a very general principle, and more of a vector quantization method than actually clustering as in "structure discovery": it will happily "cluster" uniform data, where no structure / clusters exist. --Chire (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Yoni. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. JustBerry (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

is this an automated message? that edit was done totally on good-faith. Fgnievinski (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Von Mises distribution 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Reversion at Mathematics education

Seems to me, you only wanted me to separate my edits to make it easier for you to undo only the changes you disagreed with. If this is the case, you should have just told me upfront which changes you wanted undone. - dcljr (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was being considerate for not reverting the whole thing... Fgnievinski (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The most considerate change would have been to simply reinstate the deleted section as the next edit to the article. - dcljr (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
You're right, will do next time. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Revert

What is the point of deleting a whole section of Mean? Staglit (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Its overly detailed treatment detracts from the rest of the article. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Public awareness of science (journal)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Public awareness of science (journal) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Local Attraction

Hi I am owais khursheed. I have removed your tag for merging the article Local Attraction into magnetic deviation because this is the topic about surveying not magnetic devaition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owais khursheed (talkcontribs) 08:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss it there: Talk:Local attraction#Suggested Redirect. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

{{Duplication}}

Hello, Fgnievinski. You have new messages at template talk:Duplication.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI, I've made a suggestion for the functionality you wanted. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)