Jump to content

User talk:Nageh: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
EdwardsBot (talk | contribs)
354,693 edits
too little collaboration and encouragment, too much competition and bashing
Line 1: Line 1:
{{retired}}
==Classical block codes are usually implemented using hard-decision algorithms==
Hi Nageh, I think the reference you added clarifies things. I was thinking about block codes in general, but it's true that your statement was about classical block codes, for which I agree that hard-decision was common. My mistake. [[User:Itusg15q4user|Itusg15q4user]] ([[User talk:Itusg15q4user|talk]]) 15:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

== [[Orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing]] ==

Hi- I've gone back and copy-edited the article to change all "analog" to "analogues", including links that I had not originally edited. However, I didn't change [[Template:Modulation techniques]] or [[Template:Audio broadcasting]], which are also used in the article and use the American spelling. The WikiCleaner just changes the redirects back to the current page names, which in this case, happens to be the American spelling version at the moment. Since both spelling versions were previously used in the article, I really couldn't tell that the British spelling would be the dominant version, since my perspective is from the American side. I've also gone back and changed the spelt-out acronyms to have capital letters, including links that were not originally edited by me, so that they match capitalizations throughout the article. Also, I defined a few acronyms, so that non-technical readers will know what they mean.

Could use your help with a few of the links needing disambiguation, (eg., [[Carrier-to-noise ratio|carrier-to-noise]] ... {{dn|Threshold|threshold}} and {{dn|Quadrature|quadrature}} ... -mixed), thanks. --[[User:Funandtrvl|Funandtrvl]] ([[User talk:Funandtrvl|talk]]) 21:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks again for fixing the disambigs! --[[User:Funandtrvl|Funandtrvl]] ([[User talk:Funandtrvl|talk]]) 20:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

== Concatenated error correction codes ==
The page is still being worked on. There may be minor errors, but on the whole the text you saw was an attempt to make the article more accurate and readable.

My technical background for this is adequate
* [http://hireme.geek.nz/HireMe_geek_nz.scr My screensaver]

A lot of the articles on DVB / ATSC and Compact Disc / DVD error correction are in paper form, so often you have to go via what you remember. DVB ECC and ATSC ECC are not the same, so I had to hedge my text a little. DVB-T2 is a totally different can of worms vs DVB-T, so even differentiating between these formats ECC is a minefield.

I am trying to fix and improve this at the moment.

Minor misreadings you made
* similar to NICAM? Why do you refer to an audio compression standard? Interleaving is a standard technique in error-correction coding, and your reference is totally misplaced! '''The text applies to the standardized CCSDS randomizer ... that is practically a twin to the NICAM randomizer''' NICAM and CCSDS interleavers do have a lot in common too, but only the short ones...

* For example, Voyager initially used concatenated convolutional with Golay codes '''for the planetary missions, the Golay Code allowed the images to be sent 3x faster than RSV, but after the primary mission was over the RSV code was made mandatory''' -- however finding the proper papers and articles to cite for this is hard

* And DVB-T does very well use code concatenation with RS codes. '''News to me, as I was not 100% certain, however -- DVB-T2 does not and DVB-S2 may not either.''' DVB vs DVB2 are different creatures when you ignore the standardized video resolution layers.

{{CCSDS}}

PS: ODFM is a proposed CCSDS transmission format!

[[User:Eyreland|Eyreland]] ([[User talk:Eyreland|talk]]) 08:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

== Voyager I upgrades, Voyager Program Papers ==
'''The Voyager 2 probe additionally supported an implementation of a Reed-Solomon code: the concatenated Reed-Solomon-Viterbi (RSV) code allowed for very powerful error correction, and enabled the spacecraft's extended journey to Uranus and Neptune.'''

Yes, true (''a lot of what you have put there is news to me as I was never able to get all these details'') -- but Voyager I must have had an upgrade of its ECC system once the Cameras were turned off. Where the reference is to this activity in the Voyager Mission Reports alludes me. I don't have any date to go by to prove when the VI EEC upgrade happened. However, the VI ECC upgrade must have happened ... it is the tyranny of the ''link margin'' so to speak. Also, identical (but separate) coding for uplink / downlink is cheaper too...

== Can you restore the section on CC-ECC with less math ==
Can you restore the section on CC-ECC with the less mathematical explanation.

That section had nothing to do with misinformation at all, it was at best a guide for those less mathematically inclined.

You must remember that most of the US population (and UK here too etc...) is not that mathematically inclined and would not be helped by the pure math section of [[Concatenated error correction codes]].

I speak from experience, as I am involved with
* http://hireme.geek.nz/dsn-at-home.html

Getting information on how to decode Voyager Program packets or signals is very difficult as it is a paper era mid-Cold War science programme.

However, understanding the ECC concatenation is equally hard.

This intellectual difficulty should not be imposed on the general public that funded the missions that made these ECC coding standards so obligatory.

Mathematical and Engineering illiteracy hurts mathematicians and engineers right in the pocketbook - so avoid actions that lead to greater levels of redundancy in this profession. If this lot is not getting paid, everyone else's salary is at risk.

[[User:Eyreland|Eyreland]] ([[User talk:Eyreland|talk]]) 12:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

== [[WP:PERM]] ==

Hi - I've added the rollback falg. Please review [[WP:ROLLBACK]] or ask if you need any help. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;Chat&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 20:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
:Thanks! [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 21:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

== [[WP:AIV]] ==
Hi Nageh,
I've removed your report from AIV; it's a little too complicated for AIV, where the emphasis is generally on dealing with simple and obvious cases quickly. Your report is better suited for [[WP:ANI]]; you need an admin who (a) can spend a little more time looking into this, and (b) knows how to do a rangeblock. I fit (a), but not (b), or I'd do it myself. I suspect if you make that report at [[WP:ANI]], someone will come along who can help. From a review of a few of those IP's, this looks like a reasonable suggestion, except from my ''limited'' understanding of IP ranges, I think the range you recommend might be pretty big. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 14:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

==Hmm ... (Reed Solomon) ==

Hi Glrx, and thanks for your efforts on [[Reed-Solomon code]]s. However, I want to point out that you removed a concise description of how RS codes essentially work, namely by oversampling a polynomial. Even though that statement could have been expanded, it was clear.

:I disagree that it was clear. Although RS arrived at their code from a an oversampled polynomial viewpoint, that statement is not clear but rather terse. Furthermore, the oversampled view doesn't comport with modern usage. The modern g(x) viewpoint makes s(x) disappear and lets the error correction focus on just n-k syndromes rather than interpolating polynomials. I reworked the introduction to follow the RS development after your comment, and now I'm unhappy with it -- it lead me into the same trap that I was trying to fix: describing stuff that distracts. I fell into restating the history. The goal should be to explain the code and give insight into how it works. The modern implementation is the BCH viewpoint and transmits coefficients and not values.[[User:Glrx|Glrx]] ([[User talk:Glrx#top|talk]]) 21:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The text you added describes RS codes from the point of cyclic codes. Furthermore, what you essentially say is that an error can be detected if the received code word is not divisible by the generator polynomial, which is... trivial from a coding point of view, but does not provide the casual reader with any insight. Furthermore you lead the reader to believe in a tight connection with CRC codes, while the actual connection is with cyclic codes.

:I mentioned the CRC processing to build an analogy. I deleted it, and now I'm sorry I did. It also gives context for error correction algorithm using the roots of g(x).[[User:Glrx|Glrx]] ([[User talk:Glrx#top|talk]]) 21:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Last but not least, it is actually true that RS codes were not implemented in the early 1960s because of their complexity&mdash;it _might_ have been possible to actually implement on some hardware, but nobody did it back then. As far as history tells, RS codes were not implemented until Berlekamp came up with his efficient decoding algorithm together with Massey, after which they were implemented in the Voyager 2 space probe.

:I don't understand this comment at all. I deleted a clause that claimed the digital hardware was not advanced enough at the time and left the clause about no practical decoder. The reason the codes were not implemented is because the decoding algorithm was impractical (even on modern hardware) for a large number of errors. If there were a practical decoding algorithm in 1960, there was hardware to do it. Your statement agrees with that assessment, so what does it want? Does it want to keep the inadequate digital technology clause because it may have been possible to implement impractical algorithms in 1960 hardware?[[User:Glrx|Glrx]] ([[User talk:Glrx#top|talk]]) 21:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


To summarize, the description that you have given is better placed at [[cyclic code]]s, and mathematical descriptions, if added, are better placed in the ''Mathematical formulation'' section. Cheers, and keep up the work! [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh|talk]]) 18:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

=== RS article in general ===

My general take is the article is broken in many ways. The original view is a bit interesting from the historical standpoint, but it is irrelevant to how RS codes are used today. The modern decoder interpolates the connection polynomial, but that is not the interpolation that RS described. Even if the Gegenbauer polynomial comment is correct, it is a pointless Easter egg. The Fourier transform description of how decoding works is a pointless, unreferenced, fable that takes the reader out of algebra and into signal processing point of view -- only to switch back to algebra at the last minute because the signal processing view doesn't really help with decoding or understanding. RS used the Huffman D transform (which we could call a z-Transform), but the insight is really for the formal power series manipulations.

Yes, the intro and the article need more work. I see moving some other sections up, but most moves also imply rework to accomodate the move. In the intro, RS's original m = today's k. I'll be doing more edits, but you can edit, too.[[User:Glrx|Glrx]] ([[User talk:Glrx|talk]]) 15:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

==== Rewrite / intro ====

You've put in a lot of work on the whole article. I appreciate how difficult and time consuming that is.

:Actually I am just trying to clean up the mess that was in there, just as you do. :)

I took out the comment about burst errors the first time because it isn't an essential idea of an RS code. The RS code doesn't know it's correcting a burst error.

:Lin & Costello is a very notable reference, and it explicitly points out the RS code's ability to correct both random and burst errors. It discusses this from a historical point of view, starting with single and then multiple-burst error detecting/correcting codes (yes, Fire codes are one of them), and then conclude with Reed-Solomon codes, which they characterize as "burst-and-random-error-correcting codes" when viewed over bit streams.

:I have also added a footnote citing an important application of RS codes as both random and burst error correcting, namely in concatenation with convolutional codes.

:Burst error correction is not an essential idea of RS codes, but a notable property. Whether it is notable enough to mention it in the introduction is arguable, and I won't complain if you want it moved to the article body. But note that my intention was simply to characterize them as burst-and-random-error-correcting codes.

Now your introduction is claiming that RS is a nonbinary code, but then it flips around and starts talking about a binary representation.

:Please be fair and don't misinterpret what I write. An RS code is a non-binary code because it works over symbols of any finite field. The binary representation refers to the fact that any practical code is constructed over finite fields of characteristic 2, i.e., of size 2^m. That means that each symbol can be represented by an bit string of length m. No mystery here. I am surprised that anybody can misunderstand this.

That introduces confusion, so it is not a good idea. Mentioning that RS codes are used in disk drives would be fine; explaining why RS codes are useful for burst errors requires understanding too much detail.

:Which is funny because that is the reason I have given to you for moving a lot of your introductory text to the article body.

To view it another way, in the original paper, R and S discussed both random errors and erasures. They discussed mapping the symbols onto a binary alphabet. They did not discuss burst errors, so burst errors were not an issue in the design of RS codes.

:The lead section is not about their original paper, but about an introduction to RS codes in general.

:And BTW, there is a big difference between mapping ''onto'' and mapping ''over'' a binary alphabet. RS codes map symbols ''over'' a binary alphabet, or more formally, ''onto'' a finite field of characteristic 2 (this is the binary aspect), which means symbol sizes 2^m.

:And in regards to erasures, the reason I removed them is because they are not so special. Erasure are located errors, and '''any''' error-correcting code can correct erasures. In fact, any MDS code with ''t'' check symbols can correct ''t'' erasures.

:And just reading your edit summary, what means "NB in 2D barcodes, not BEC"? I don't understand NB, but BEC is [[binary erasure channel]]. Please not that any erasure channel is equivalent to the binary erasure channel.

There are two versions classic RS encodings. If the message is P(x), then one can sent P(x) g(x) or one can send the systematic P(x) x^{n-k} + remainder. Either version sends a polynomial evenly divisible by g(x). The more common version (and the one described further down in the article) is the latter systematic version.

:Which I explained in the article, right? The systematic method just reconstructs the generator polynomial, that doesn't change how en- and decoding works otherwise.

I'm watching this page, so add replies here and I will see them.[[User:Glrx|Glrx]] ([[User talk:Glrx|talk]]) 21:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

:Done. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 21:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

:PS: I have tried to merge both our views into the lead section. I hope you can agree. Otherwise, let's discuss. :) [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 22:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
====Edit collision on Rewrite / intro ====

You've put in a lot of work on the whole article. I appreciate how difficult and time consuming that is.

:Actually I am just trying to clean up the mess that was in there, just as you do. :)

:: and I made a bigger mess as I was doing it.

I took out the comment about burst errors the first time because it isn't an essential idea of an RS code. The RS code doesn't know it's correcting a burst error.

:Lin & Costello is a very notable reference, and it explicitly points out the RS code's ability to correct both random and burst errors. It discusses this from a historical point of view, starting with single and then multiple-burst error detecting/correcting codes (yes, Fire codes are one of them), and then conclude with Reed-Solomon codes, which they characterize as "burst-and-random-error-correcting codes" when viewed over bit streams.

:I have also added a footnote citing an important application of RS codes as both random and burst error correcting, namely in concatenation with convolutional codes.

:Burst error correction is not an essential idea of RS codes, but a notable property. Whether it is notable enough to mention it in the introduction is arguable, and I won't complain if you want it moved to the article body. But note that my intention was simply to characterize them as burst-and-random-error-correcting codes.

:: I think we agree. Burst error should get prominence in either properies (which should move up) or applications. In the body interleaving can be mentioned.

Now your introduction is claiming that RS is a nonbinary code, but then it flips around and starts talking about a binary representation.

:Please be fair and don't misinterpret what I write. An RS code is a non-binary code because it works over symbols of any finite field. The binary representation refers to the fact that any practical code is constructed over finite fields of characteristic 2, i.e., of size 2^m. That means that each symbol can be represented by an bit string of length m. No mystery here. I am surprised that anybody can misunderstand this.

:: I'm not disputing the theory but rather the presentation. Casual reader is told nonbinary in one sentence and binary in another. The audience is need not be versed in coding theory.

That introduces confusion, so it is not a good idea. Mentioning that RS codes are used in disk drives would be fine; explaining why RS codes are useful for burst errors requires understanding too much detail.

:Which is funny because that is the reason I have given to you for moving a lot of your introductory text to the article body.

:: No dispute there. My intro also got tangled in detail.

To view it another way, in the original paper, R and S discussed both random errors and erasures. They discussed mapping the symbols onto a binary alphabet. They did not discuss burst errors, so burst errors were not an issue in the design of RS codes.

:The lead section is not about their original paper, but about an introduction to RS codes in general.

:And BTW, there is a big difference between mapping ''onto'' and mapping ''over'' a binary alphabet. RS codes map symbols ''over'' a binary alphabet, or more formally, ''onto'' a finite field of characteristic 2 (this is the binary aspect), which means symbol sizes 2^m.

:: mea culpa informal. I used the notion as a restricted alphabet used to build words. R&S used translation of K ''into'' a binary alphabet.

:And in regards to erasures, the reason I removed them is because they are nothing special. Erasure are located errors, and '''any''' error-correcting code can correct erasures. And just reading your edit summary, what means "NB in 2D barcodes, not BEC"? I don't understand NB, but BEC is [[binary erasure channel]]. Please not that any erasure channel is equivalent to the binary erasure channel.

:: NB = important. Yes, any error correcting code can correct erasures, but that buries RS corrects twice as many erasures as errors. I'm looking at the Wikipedia reader and not someone who knows all the implications of MDS.

There are two versions classic RS encodings. If the message is P(x), then one can sent P(x) g(x) or one can send the systematic P(x) x^{n-k} + remainder. Either version sends a polynomial evenly divisible by g(x). The more common version (and the one described further down in the article) is the latter systematic version.

:Which I explained in the article, right? The systematic method just reconstructs the generator polynomial, that doesn't change how en- and decoding works otherwise.

:: I wasn't commenting about theory but rather presentation that can confuse a reader. If the reader sees an RS encoding is P(x)g(x) and then sees that an RS encoding is something different further down will confuse him. It's OK to simplify some things.

I'm watching this page, so add replies here and I will see them.[[User:Glrx|Glrx]] ([[User talk:Glrx|talk]]) 21:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

:Done. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 21:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

:: gotta go. Thanks.[[User:Glrx|Glrx]] ([[User talk:Glrx|talk]]) 22:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

====Unindent====

(Unindent) Turns out we mostly agree. Yes, the article has multiple issues, but correcting them takes time. (Lots of time.) I am aware that some parts I started working on (section Classic view) are left unfinished. I may continue when I get to it, but no promise there (feel free to work on it).

I understand and agree that I may not assume knowledge on coding theoretic concepts from the reader. It might just take me a while sometimes to get the text right, which means rewriting by myself or by some other person several times. :)

cheers, [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 22:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

: Yes, it takes enormous amounts of time. I was very impressed with the time you put into your edits. I still think ''t'' erasures is important in the introduction and shouldn't be buried, but we've both got other things to do.[[User:Glrx|Glrx]] ([[User talk:Glrx|talk]]) 23:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

====Berlekamp Massey decoder====

The reversion of the basic description of the decoder restored what I believe to ba an incorrect description of the LFSR. Also, I've only seen one implementation of Berlekamp Massey and many implementations of Euclid in the computer peripherals I've worked on in the past, but your experience differs. Both are popular methods. Euclid is much easier and less complex to implement. (update it's simpler to implement, I don't know about gate counts though). I noted this in the talk page: [[Talk:Reed%E2%80%93Solomon_error_correction#Berlekamp_Massey_decoder | Talk_Berlekamp_Massey_decoder]] [[User:Rcgldr|Rcgldr]] ([[User talk:Rcgldr|talk]]) 03:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

: I updated the brief description in the RS article to match the description and example code in the Berlekamp Massey artcile.
[[User:Rcgldr|Rcgldr]] ([[User talk:Rcgldr|talk]]) 03:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

====Euclidean decoder====

I added a section for the Euclidean decoder on the discussion (not the article) page. <br>
[[Talk:Reed%E2%80%93Solomon_error_correction#Euclidean_Division_Algorithm_Decoder|Talk:Euclidean_Division_Algorithm_Decoder]] <br>
I created a program for GF(929) (first time I had to deal with add and subtract instead of xor). It's working but one puzzlement is that when converting the final remainder to omega(x), I have to negate it if the number of errors is odd. If intersted, I can post a zip of the source and program on my web site. <br>
[[User:Rcgldr|Rcgldr]] ([[User talk:Rcgldr|talk]]) 00:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)<br><br>
Added a brief section [[Reed%E2%80%93Solomon_error_correction#Euclidean_decoder | Euclidean_decoder]] to main article. [[User:Rcgldr|Rcgldr]] ([[User talk:Rcgldr|talk]]) 08:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

====Hardware Inversion via sub-field mapping====

In case you're interested or curious, here is link to an old Word 6.0 / 95 document: [http://rcgldr.net/misc/m8to44.doc m8to44.doc] . All of this can be implemented in hardware, including circuits for the 8 bit mapping, the GF(16<sup>2</sup>) math: a + b, a &times; b, 1 / a, a<sup>2</sup>, and mapping back to the 8 bit field, as a series of stages of about 340 gates, with a single progation delay. [[User:Rcgldr|Rcgldr]] ([[User talk:Rcgldr|talk]]) 09:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

:Thanks, I might take a look. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 09:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

== AfD closing of [[Susan Scholz]] ==

Excuse me, but your AfD closing of [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Susan_Scholz]] was premature. It should have entered a second round, as it does not conform to the wikipedia policy guidelines of notability. I would appreciate if you would reopen the AfD debate. Thanks, [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh|talk]]) 10:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
:There is nothing in the deletion policy to support a relisting (see [[WP:RELIST]]). The question of whether the article meets notability criteria is a question of fact to be established by consensus on the deletion discussion page. There was no such consensus. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 10:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
::No there is not, but proper reaction is something that might be expected from an admin deciding on how to proceed on an AfD debate. To me it was obvious that the article was in need of further discussion, and a proper reaction would be to relist the discussion in order to try coming to a consensus. You also ignored an ongoing discussion on her claimed notability according to [[WP:PROF]] claim #1. I would again appreciate if would reconsider your actions. Thanks, [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 10:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
::No there is not, but proper reaction is something that might be expected from an admin deciding on how to proceed on an AfD debate. To me it was obvious that the article was in need of further discussion, and a proper reaction would be to relist the discussion in order to try coming to a consensus. You also ignored an ongoing discussion on her claimed notability according to [[WP:PROF]] claim #1. I would again appreciate if would reconsider your actions. Thanks, [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh|talk]]) 10:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
:::Admins are bound to operate in accordance with policies and guidelines, and are not entitled to make up new ones on the fly. I'm happy with my no-consensus closure and you're welcome to open a [[WP:DRV|deletion review]] if you feel it was not correct. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 10:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

== Thank you ==

Nageh, thank you for your letter. I appreciate the time and thought you gave to what a quick browsing shows to be substantive and constructive writing. After I give it serious study, is this the proper place to reply to you again? [[User:Vejlefjord|Vejlefjord]] ([[User talk:Vejlefjord|talk]]) 21:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

:Thank you for the appreciation. Yes, this place is fine for your further comments. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 21:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Nageh, I am looking at your 10 Dec 2010 post on my talk in which you wrote “Vejlefjord, I apologize, I did not find enough time yet to go through your new version of the User:Nageh/Theodicy and the Bible (second draft) article. I think I will find more time in the upcoming Christmas holidays.” I hope you can find time and have not given up on the project. Thank you and all the best. [[User:Vejlefjord|Vejlefjord]] ([[User talk:Vejlefjord|talk]]) 22:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

:Your words are reencouragement to review your latest draft. I will keep it on my to-do list. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 07:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Nageh, I hope you can find just a little time to assess User:Nageh/Theodicy and the Bible (second draft). Just a quick check to see if you think it’s OK. If you think it is OK, should we “go live” or follow your earlier suggestion to get someone in the Christianity/Assessment Project to assess it first? [[User:Vejlefjord|Vejlefjord]] ([[User talk:Vejlefjord|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 20:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I feel really sorry I still haven't gotten to review your draft as promised. Unfortunately, I am very busy these days and while I do spend some (too much) time on other stuff on Wikipedia this task is a bigger one I have postponed so far. I won't have much time available anytime soon either so you might try contacting some person on the Christianity project, and if actual work will be going on I might still be able to jump in. Sorry I'm not of more help for the moment. Best, [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 22:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

== MathJax in Wikipedia ==

Thank you so much for sharing this. Now let's think about the following.

* We need an easy way to update to the most recent version. For this, we should prepare a patch for MathJax that enables us to control from the config file the changes you made. This way, as few changes as possible are required in the actual source code.
* We need to hunt bugs. The most common reason why a page wouldn't render fully seems to be due to a bug of mediawiki. In my [[User:Ylloh/sandbox|sandbox]] you can see that ':' and the math tags do not understand each other (with 'display as latex' turned on), which makes it impossible for MathJax to match the opening and closing dollar.
* Any ideas on how to provide the webfonts on wikipedia so that clients don't need to install anything?
* We should inform the developers of MathJax and mediawiki.

What do you think? [[User:Ylloh|ylloh]] ([[User talk:Ylloh|talk]]) 14:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm busy for the rest of the week, but on the week-end I'll try to contact the mediawiki developers about this. [[User:Ylloh|ylloh]] ([[User talk:Ylloh|talk]]) 09:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Btw, while the number of files for the image fonts is enormous, there are only 21 files for the svg fonts. Btw2, the fonts have received an update on the mathjax svn yesterday. [[User:Ylloh|ylloh]] ([[User talk:Ylloh|talk]]) 13:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow! That's fast! [[User:Ylloh|ylloh]] ([[User talk:Ylloh|talk]]) 09:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a normal Wiki user just trying to use you MathJax plugin. I added ''importScript('User:Nageh/mathJax.js');'' in my [[User:Netheril96/vector.js]], installed the MathJax web fonts, chose "Leave as TeX" option, Shift-Reload and restarted FireFox (during which I saw a notice on loading some mathjax .js files) but it didn't work. It's just plain TeX. By the way, why the user ylloh kept talking to himself?--[[User:Netheril96|Netheril96]] ([[User talk:Netheril96|talk]]) 01:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not talk to myself ;). Do you have a recent version of firefox? I think you have to install the [http://www.mathjax.org/help/fonts/ MathJax fonts] locally, which MathJax normally does not require, but which is necessary as the fonts have not been uploaded to wikipedia. [[User:Ylloh|ylloh]] ([[User talk:Ylloh|talk]]) 08:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

: So why the only signature above my first comment is yours? I installed both STIX and the fonts Nageh said (See [[Help talk:Displaying a formula#Formulas as SVG?]]) but nothing happened yet. And do you know what is the fundamentals of his mathjax.js? Is it just a copy of MathJax's main javascript file?--[[User:Netheril96|Netheril96]] ([[User talk:Netheril96|talk]]) 11:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I just updated my STIX fonts to the most recent version. They work, but not on wikipedia with this script. The version of MathJax that is uploaded to wikipedia is old and does not seem to be compatible with the most recent fonts, so rendering does not work. MathJax looks so great in a wiki (e.g. in DokuWiki), and I would really like to see wikipedia use it by default. [[User:Ylloh|ylloh]] ([[User talk:Ylloh|talk]]) 08:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

:Hi Netheril96, thanks for your interest. MathJax support is currently broken as I'm waiting for a few bugs I got fixed in [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki] more than 6 months ago to become effective on Wikipedia. If anyone knows which people to address to [[Special:Version|update]] the mediawiki software on the English wikipedia, please do so.
:The script I have uploaded is slightly modified from its original to consider the different directory layout, different settings, and some markup issues. As soon as we have a recent mediawiki version I will continue working on it, but currently there is no point.
:[[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 11:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

::Just to keep interested users updated. The fixes have been applied to the Wikipedia branch, so I ported the current MathJax 1.0 and extended it to respect the additional texvc commands. It should be working just fine now, except it may be a bit slow on maths heavy pages. Have fun, [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 13:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I want to point out that Firefox+Greasemonkey [http://www.mathjax.org/docs/1.1/dynamic.html#mathjax-and-greasemonkey can be used] to render math on wikipedia using the MathJax CDN. That works fine for as long as wikipedia does not support this natively. [[User:Ylloh|ylloh]] ([[User talk:Ylloh|talk]]) 21:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

:Why not use [[User:Nageh/mathJax]] my script? It distinguishes between display and inline math, provides texvc functionality that is not part of (La)TeX, and implements other improvements for Wikipedia support. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 21:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
:Yes, your script is clearly better. Thanks again! [[User:Ylloh|ylloh]] ([[User talk:Ylloh|talk]]) 20:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

=== Improvements ===
Maybe it could have something like
:<code>if ( someCheckOnMathPreference ) jsMsg( 'For using MathJax, you need to set math rendering to "Leave it as TeX" in your preferences' );</code>
so that when a user try to use it without setting the preference it would be informed about this. [[b:pt:User:Heldergeovane|Helder]] 16:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Helder.wiki|Helder.wiki]] ([[User talk:Helder.wiki|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Helder.wiki|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I will consider it. Thanks for the interest! [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 20:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
::You're welcome. =)
::Do you know if currently it is loaded in every page or just on those which have some element with <code>class="tex"</code>? If it doesn't, this could be another improvement in speed when not viewing pages with math. [[b:pt:User:Heldergeovane|Helder]] 01:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
:::Implemented in new version. Documentation [[User:Nageh/mathJax|here]]. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 20:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Recent Progress ===
Hi, I'm a new user, so I hope I'm not doing this completely wrong.

I'm wondering if you know what the chances are of wikipedia switching to MathJax. I saw the positive comments by Brion Vibber at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31406#c12 but he wanted to wait for MathJax 2.0 -- which has been released this week. I also know that the MathJax developers are willing to help.

Thanks,
[[User:Pkra|Pkra]] ([[User talk:Pkra|talk]]) 17:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

:Based on past experience I'd say the switch will take quite some time to happen. For the moment anyone interested can make use of my user script, as document at [[User:Nageh/mathJax]]. I will upgrade to MathJax version 2.0 some time the next days, if you are curious. HTH, [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 18:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

:Update accomplished. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 21:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

:Thanks, Nageh! Brion Vibber stopped by the MathJax mailing list and there's already been some interaction with Davide Cervone. So maybe this will move forward a little [[User:Pkra|Pkra]] ([[User talk:Pkra|talk]]) 02:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

== I have marked you as a reviewer ==

I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the [[Wikipedia:Pending changes|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 [http://myrandomnode.dyndns.org:8080/~gmaxwell/flagged_protection3.png 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. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 13:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

== RfD ==

I went ahead and RfDed pre coding. A1 was not the correct speedy tag, and because of its age the correct venue is RfD. I made an entry [[Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_22|here]]. Thanks for the follow up. ''[[User:NativeForeigner|NativeForeigner]]'' <sup>[[User talk:NativeForeigner|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/NativeForeigner|Contribs]]</sub> 19:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


== General Number Field Sieve ==
You recently undid my revision 377392928 on the [[general number field sieve]] because it does not comply with Wikipedia's definition of L. I just looked at my "Prime Numbers: A Computational Perspective" book and also my "Development of the Number Field Sieve" book, and they use the same notation I use, so this suggest that the problem was not with my general number field sieve correction, but instead with Wikipedia's L definition. I'm also fairly confident that Lenstra and Pomerance were the ones who standardized this notation, so Wikipedia's big O around the front is non-standard, and should be fixed. Let me know if you concur. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Scott contini|Scott contini]] ([[User talk:Scott contini|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Scott contini|contribs]]) 23:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

UPDATE: You're right that Handbook of Applied Cryptography uses the big O on page 60, Example 2.6.1. and this is not listed as an error on HAC errata web page. I maintain: (i) The Big O on the outside has no effect and does not belong there -- so this can be interpreted as an error which has not yet been reported to the HAC authors, (ii) I think the notation came from either Lenstra or Pomerance, and they do not use Big O. A few sources: pg 358 of the Encyclopedia of cryptography and security (article written by Arjen Lenstra), Any article in the Development of the Number Field Sieve book, and Crandall and Pomerance's book. I'm also going to email Arjen Lenstra on this. More news later. [[User:Scott contini|Scott contini]] ([[User talk:Scott contini|talk]]) 00:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Some history: Prior to the number field sieve, the L-notation had only one parameter, because the <math>\alpha</math> was always 1/2 for the algorithms they were interested in. I don't yet know when the original L-notation was introduced, but Pomerance used it in hios 1982 seminal paper "Analysis and Comparison of some Integer Factoring Algorithms" which can be downloaded from his website. Pomerance did not use any big-O, only little o, and he explains properties of the little o that make it evident that big O is not needed in section 2 (although he does not explicitly say this, it is implied). When the number field sieve was invented, they no longer had the 1/2 in the exponent so they then added the second parameter to the notation so as to include all subexponential type algorithms. This was combined analysis by several people including Pomerance and H. Lenstra. It's all in the Development of the Number Field Sieve book. I'm still awaiting a reply from Arjen Lenstra, but based upon this I can pretty confidently say that Handbook of Applied Cryptography (HAC) and Wikipedia are using non-standard notation, and the big O can be eliminated. Let me know your thoughts. [[User:Scott contini|Scott contini]] ([[User talk:Scott contini|talk]]) 03:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

:Well, without the Big O it would actually equal Big Theta (Θ). Since the complexity usually refers to the worst case, you'd actually have to use the Big O outside to describe the running time of the algorithm. So either way you'd say it is O(L(...)) or simply L(...), depending on which definition of L you use. Note that the small o inside of L does not take care of that. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 08:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

::Sorry, I have to disagree with you. I also got my reply from Arjen Lenstra which agrees with me. He writes "But O is nonsense if o(1) in exponent". Feel free to email me at scott_contini at yahoo and I will forward his reply to you. But really, the argument is very simple. <math>O( x )</math> means there is a constant <math>k</math> such that the function asymptotically converges to no more than <math>kx</math>. Now replace <math>x</math> with <math>e^{(c+o(1))(\ln n)^\alpha(\ln\ln n)^{1-\alpha}}</math>. Observe:
::<math>k e^{(c+o(1))(\ln n)^\alpha(\ln\ln n)^{1-\alpha}}</math>
::<math>= e^{\ln k} e^{(c+o(1))(\ln n)^\alpha(\ln\ln n)^{1-\alpha}}</math>
::<math>= e^{\ln k + (c+o(1))(\ln n)^\alpha(\ln\ln n)^{1-\alpha}}</math>
::<math>= e^{(c+o(1))(\ln n)^\alpha(\ln\ln n)^{1-\alpha}}</math>
::because <math>{\ln k}</math> is <math>o(1)(\ln n)^\alpha(\ln\ln n)^{1-\alpha}</math> (e.g. <math>{\ln k}</math> is asymptotically negligible in comparison to <math>(\ln n)^\alpha(\ln\ln n)^{1-\alpha}</math> -- the former is a constant, the latter is not). [[User:Scott contini|Scott contini]] ([[User talk:Scott contini|talk]]) 12:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

:::You misunderstood me. It is clear that the small o takes care of multiplicative, exponential, and additive constants. What it does not take care of are functions with lower (different) complexity, i.e., smaller α. For example, a polynomial (in ln(n)) or a constant is not in the set of functions complying to L with any α>0, assuming the definition without the Big O. However, it is in O(L(...)). So while o(1) will ultimately converge to 0, for any c and α>0 the function is nonetheless a superpolynomial function, and L thus a set of such superpolynomial functions. Then, the Big O says nothing but the worst case complexity is ultimately superpolynomial (but nothing about e.g. average case complexity). And this is where I see the point: the L notation actually refers to the ''expected'' complexity as n tends to infinity (and thus the average complexity). And for this you truly don't need a Big O outside. (And thus the definition of L without O becomes more reasonable.)
:::Irrespectively, I would very well like to see Lenstra's response as well. I'll send you an email. Thanks! [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 13:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

::::I see your point now. However, (i) the standard notation does not use big O, and (ii) the running times for quadratic sieve, number field sieve, and all of these combination of congruence algorithms are the actual running time -- not upper bounds. That is, the running time of the number field sieve is indeed (for the <math>c</math> defined in the algorithm):
:::::<math>e^{(c+o(1))(\log n)^{\frac{1}{3}}(\log \log n)^{\frac{2}{3}}}</math>
::::So, putting the big O on the outside of this is giving the impression that it is an upper bound when in fact that is the running time for every suitable number that is fed in. In general, if one wants to indicate that it is an upper bound rather than proved (under certain assumptions that NFS sieved numbers/norms have smoothness probabilities similar to randomly chosen numbers of the same size) running time, then they can add the big O on the outside. That is, they can say <math>O(L(...))</math>. But if you define the L-notation to have the big O on the outside, then algorithms that have that as their actual run time (not upper bound) are not able to indicate that. Such an example is the number field sieve. So in addition to points (i) and (ii), I add that (iii) the standard definition (which is not the Wikipedia/HAC definition) is more useful. I'm making the same argument on [[Talk:L-notation]]. [[User:Scott contini|Scott contini]] ([[User talk:Scott contini|talk]]) 23:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::Scott, we're concluding along the same lines. I totally agree with you here, as this is what I tried to say in my previous comment. The L in the GNFS refers to the expected complexity, and thus not to an upper bound, so the Big O is inappropriate. From this point of view I also agree that it makes more sense to define the L without the Big O outside, and use O(L(...)) when you truly want to refer to an upper bound.
:::::What I would like to see now are suitable references, both for personal interest and for including at the [[L notation]] Wikipedia article. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 07:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

::::::Thanks. Glad we are in agreement. [[User:Scott contini|Scott contini]] ([[User talk:Scott contini|talk]]) 12:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

== Vejlefjord: report ==

Nageh, I gave your (April 2010) helpfully specific critique and guidelines re my first Wikipedia try with “Theodicy and the Bible” the serious study it deserved. Motivated by your response (along with Moonriddengirl's interest), I have done a major rewriting that is posted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vejlefjord with the title “Major rewriting of ‘Theodicy and the Bible’.” Would you be so kind as to look at the rewrite and tell me whether you consider “the way in which it is presented” (to use your words) Wiki-OK? Trying to write Wiki-style is different (and more difficult for me) than my experience with books and journal articles. Thanks, Vejlefjord [[User:Vejlefjord|Vejlefjord]] ([[User talk:Vejlefjord|talk]]) 02:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks for your invitation to review, I hope to get to it within the next (several) days. From a first quick analysis, the article seems more accessible now, but there are still a couple of issues left, and in part the presentation got a bit bullet-style. Anyway, I intend to come up with some concrete suggestions for further improving the article after reviewing. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 09:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

:: I moved the stuff a bit around. The article is now [[User:Vejlefjord/Theodicy and the Bible (rewrite)|here]]. I'm not really active on Wikipedia, so your help is much needed. I think the article has potential and it would be a shame if it couldn't be used. [[User:Vesal|Vesal]] ([[User talk:Vesal|talk]]) 12:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

::: Thanks for the notice and the initial effort. Right, I absolutely intend to get it back into article space at some point. I'm a little bit restricted time wise as well currently, but I will see what I can do. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 17:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Vesal and Nageh re your posts on User talk:Nageh which I appreciate. I’ll try to do better and get a response to Vesal’s edit ASAP — his edits evoked more issues than he probably expected. You both seem to be busy, so if either of you will point out specific changes you think needed, I will work on them (or tell you if I have questions them). I know the article no longer belongs to me, but using theological language appropriately can be difficult, and it may be that, after a lifetime working at it, I am better equipped to do rewriting. [[User:Vejlefjord|Vejlefjord]] ([[User talk:Vejlefjord|talk]]) 22:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

:Vejlefjord, I hope to get some time next week or so for this. Anyway, I'll follow the article. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 23:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

::Nageh, in your 15 August 2010 comments re “Theodicy and the Bible - rewrite,” on the plus side you say that “the article seems more accessible now.” On the negative side you say that '''“there are still a couple of issues left, and in part the presentation got a bit bullet-style.”''' I look forward to receiving your “concrete suggestions for further improving the article” that you said would be forthcoming whenever you can find time.

::Vesal seems to have decided that I am hopeless as a Wikipedia editor/writer and bowed out. See his “4 Reply to your lengthy post” (31 Aug) at User:Vejlefjord talk). He rated my first attempt as “really bad” and rewrite as “outright atrocious.” Very different than his earlier “I think the article has potential and it would be a shame if it couldn't be used.” My lengthy post is on User:Vesal (talk). The first section responded to Vesal’s edited lead and the second section was on my reflections after browsing “Wikipedia:About” and various Discussion pages concerning what I am trying to do for Wikipedia — might be of interest as a look inside the brain of a new volunteer. (One thing I read was a discussion on your talk about how many citations should be used. I have some thoughts if you would like me to post them.)

::If you also decide that I am hopeless as a Wikipedia editor/writer, feel free to let me know. I can drop the project and chalk it up to an adventure in the exotic world of Wikipedia. I sometimes feel exasperated by what feels like a Wikipedia priority of form over substance.

::A question: am I allowed to delete my first attempt at “Theodicy and the Bible” — take it back, so to speak? [[User:Vejlefjord|Vejlefjord]] ([[User talk:Vejlefjord|talk]]) 00:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

::: Sigh, I seem to have some problems to communicate. I was talking about the current [[theodicy]] article, and not his draft. The early [[theodicy]] and [[problem of evil]] articles on Wikipedia were really bad; most of it was folk arguments, rather than a coherent exposition of the philosophical literature, and the two articles heavily overlapped. As a solution, the [[theodicy]] article has been stubbed down to a list of dictionary definition. So to make this clear: the current [[theodicy]] article is outright atrocious!! I said this because I felt Veljefjord is looking at bad examples of how articles should look like, and I wanted to suggest that he rather use the featured articles as models. I have not changed my opinion about ''theodicy and the Bible'', which is far better than anything we have currently on the topic. [[User:Vesal|Vesal]] ([[User talk:Vesal|talk]]) 12:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

:::: Vesal, I am glad I misread your post. I had asked you what version of “Theodicy and the Bible” you were looking at, so I read your post as (a) an answer to my question and (b) comments on the rewrite version. I have redone the Lead according to my reading of WP:LEAD. I have also removed several “is defined as” from the article. I will gladly consider other specific suggestions for improvement. Also I am awed by the meaning of your name: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=vesal [[User:Vejlefjord|Vejlefjord]] ([[User talk:Vejlefjord|talk]]) 22:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Nageh, please find my reply on Discussion/talk on [[User:Nageh/Theodicy and the Bible (draft rewrite)]]. [[User:Vejlefjord|Vejlefjord]] ([[User talk:Vejlefjord|talk]]) 01:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

==Clipping path service==
Unfortunately,The article [[clipping path]] service has been redirected to clipping path according to the administrative decision. Well, obviously I have respect and honor to the decision. At this situation, can I edit the [[clipping path]] article by adding content, Sir? Thanks for your consideration. [[User:Saiful 9999|Md Saiful Alam]] ([[User talk:Saiful 9999|talk]]) 03:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

:Thank you for the editing in the clipping path service section in the article of [[clipping path]] [[User:Saiful 9999|Md Saiful Alam]] ([[User talk:Saiful 9999|talk]]) 08:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

::You're welcome. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 08:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

== [[Computer_security]] ==

I found the material completly inappropriate '''and''' harmful to the encyclopedia under [[WP:NOTADVERT]] and others. [[Special:Contributions/Active_Banana|''Active'']] [[User:Active Banana|<font color="gold">'''Banana</font>''']] <font color="gold"> ''' ('''</font> [[User talk:Active Banana|<font color="gold"><sup>''bananaphone''</sup></font>]] 20:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

:Please read again what I [[User_talk:Active_Banana#Dealing_with_uncited_sources|wrote]]. (Maybe I was expressing myself not clearly. Sorry.) I '''support''' your removal of information in [[Information security]] as it was of clearly inferior quality, as I stated myself. However, I scrolled through your contribution list and found that you pursue a rather strong attitude of removing information. In some articles I found that the information removed was both correct and harmless. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 21:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
::Oops, I was thinking of a different article too. Re [[Computer security]] all of that content had been flagged for up to a number of years without sources. But back to my general policy, I view leaving content that has not been verified ''IS'' harmful becuase many readers assume that they can believe what they read in Wikipedia, and as the incident above shows, that even flagged content can remain in Wikipedia for far to long without appropriate sourcing. [[Special:Contributions/Active_Banana|''Active'']] [[User:Active Banana|<font color="gold">'''Banana</font>''']] <font color="gold"> ''' ('''</font> [[User talk:Active Banana|<font color="gold"><sup>''bananaphone''</sup></font>]] 21:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
:::Honestly, I think that anybody reading an open encyclopedia as an intrinsically reliable source can't be helped. The problem with removing what I call harmless and not doubtful material is that it may result in a loss of valuable information. For one, anonymous edits virtually never provide sources. If we delete all their edits right away, we may just as well ban them. Second, I personally edit at times without providing sources, mainly to correct or extend some information which I know to be correct (because it is in my area of expertise) but which I couldn't provide a reference right away (because I'd need to look up a book at my university library for example). Considering this I think that editors should be given some leeway for articles still under construction when the topic is not susceptible to libelous or discreditive edits (such as purely scientific topics). BTW, I was referring to your removals at [[Indore]]. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 21:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

:::Not those latest edits at Indore I mean... I am referring to these two edits: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indore&action=historysubmit&diff=381359253&oldid=381354698] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indore&action=historysubmit&diff=381360347&oldid=381360217]. While poor in style (non-native speakers, obviously) the information was mostly correct. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 22:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
::::I think we will have to agree to disagree. You can keep with a looser application of [[WP:V]] and I will continue with my more stringent version. [[Special:Contributions/Active_Banana|''Active'']] [[User:Active Banana|<font color="gold">'''Banana</font>''']] <font color="gold"> ''' ('''</font> [[User talk:Active Banana|<font color="gold"><sup>''bananaphone''</sup></font>]] 22:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


Please stop inserting the same reference all over as you did with your recent edits. This is considered spamming, as the reference was neither suitable nor adequate in articles not discussing authentication, and for the Authentication article it did not adequately present a more general definition or outline of authentication, for which entity authentication is only a subset. If you would like to post a reply, you may do it here or on my talk page. Thanks, Nageh (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
: I have read the article and I am pretty sure that the reference does describes "entity authentication" very formally and scientifically. As far as your concern that "entity authentication is only a subset of authentication", it's not really correct. The word authentication is a ambiguous term that can be used either for "Entity Authentication" (or User Authentication if you may call it), or for Message Authentication. Since, the article under question have nothing to do with "Message Authentication" so it is very appropriate not to delete my so called spammed reference. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/130.225.71.18|130.225.71.18]] ([[User talk:130.225.71.18|talk]]) 10:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== [[Authentication]] ==

I completely disagree with all of your points. Does it help the reader? Yes it warns them that the content they are reading is not up to Wikipedia's standards and they should take it with a grain (or more) of salt. Does it help editors? Yes, editors wishing to improve article can use the tag categories to find articles about topics that interest them that have been identified by others as needing help. Is it merely allowed by policies? No, it is encouraged by policies for the above reasons. [[Special:Contributions/Active_Banana|''Active'']] [[User:Active Banana|<font color="gold">'''Banana</font>''']] <font color="gold"> ''' ('''</font> [[User talk:Active Banana|<font color="gold"><sup>''bananaphone''</sup></font>]] 17:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
:I have great confidence that I will not be able to change your opinion and know that you will not be able to change mine and so do not feel that continuing this discussion will be productive use of either of our time. Have a good day.[[Special:Contributions/Active_Banana|''Active'']] [[User:Active Banana|<font color="gold">'''Banana</font>''']] <font color="gold"> ''' ('''</font> [[User talk:Active Banana|<font color="gold"><sup>''bananaphone''</sup></font>]] 18:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
::Note: I left 2 notes at [[User talk:Active Banana#Authentication]]. That's all. :) -- [[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] ([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]]) 20:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

== World Science Festival FAR ==

Hi Nageh - Would you mind revisiting your nomination of World Science Festival (page at [[WP:Featured article review/World Science Festival/archive1]]) to see if your concerns have been resolved? Thanks, [[User:Dana boomer|Dana boomer]] ([[User talk:Dana boomer|talk]]) 13:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

== Please, tell me what you want me to do. ==

Nageh, I suspect you would like to put the “Theodicy and the Bible” project behind you, and I would also. But I don’t know what you want me to do next. Let me recap situation as I understand it:

*You and Vesal kindly encouraged me to try rewriting the userfied article in Wikipedia style (which I tried to do).

*You both were also kind enough to critique my rewrite’s conformity to Wikipedia style. Your verdict was that it needed work.

*You (Nageh) were kind enough to “adopt” the rewrite and give it a home on your user-page for doing the reworking needed. (I fear that I failed to thank you for taking the project into your hands where it belongs because you are the expert on Wikipedia procedures.)

*You re-sectioned the article. (Unless you ask me to, I will gladly not raise the questions that I had about it.)

*You also inserted bold-comments for me to work on: a task I said I’d complete after the Lead reworking was settled.

*The Lead. On 11 Sept, you wrote that you would leave the Lead to Vesal and me. That collaboration seems to be on hold or ended? The last entry on Vesal (talk) was 4 September. And Vesal has not answered my 15 Sept entry on User:Nageh/Theodicy_and_the_Bible_(draft_rewrite). If you think Vesal’s draft is OK, I will happily forget about the Lead and work on your bold-comments. (I wrote my draft only because I had some questions about Vesal’s conformity with what I read in WP:LEAD.)

*I take it that when (or if) the article is “ready to go live,” it will come from you, so I see my role as trying to do what you want me to do.

So, please tell me what I you want me to do next. Or ask me to clarify what I have written. [[User:Vejlefjord|Vejlefjord]] ([[User talk:Vejlefjord|talk]]) 19:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

::Vejlefjord, it's good to see you haven't completely given up yet. First, thanks for the flattery of calling me a Wikipedia expert, though I'd rather say I'm just experienced. In contrast, I'd call you the expert on the subject of theodicy, which is why I left rewriting the lead to you and Vesal. Unfortunately, Vesal seems to be rather busy, and my time is quite limited currently as well.

::You were mentioning some other person who you'd have liked to call for help. Maybe this is a good time to do so? In any case, if this article is gonna go anywhere soon, I think it should be somebody with some time devotable to this article, at least remotely familiar with the subject, and at best also a native English speaker (which I'm not).

::Regarding my re-sectioning effort, feel free to raise your concerns, this is a community effort not a dictatorship. Anyway, your subtle criticism clearly demands some justification from my side. When I was reading your article first, as someone previously completely unfamiliar with the topic, I had serious troubles in understanding, and I had to go through it several times to be able to interconnect the various concepts you laid out in subsections of "God and evil in the Bible" and "Bible and theodic issues", and to understand what really are the theodic arguments, ''justifications'', as opposed to examples and ''conflicting interpretations''. This process was complicated by the myriad of sub- and subsubsections, which -- as I said previously -- are presented rather bullet-style, and thus may be more appropriate for overhead slides with a teacher (professor) explaining them.
::So the first thing I did was trying to bring the concepts in order such that someone unfamiliar with the subject (like me) would have the two important issues concerning the rest of the article clearly laid out at the start, which -- as I understood them -- are "Examples of evil and God's role therein/God and evil" and "Conflicting interpretations". The first section also tries to clearly motivate the need for a theodicy, leading over to other sections in its last paragraph.
::The second thing I did was getting rid of the too many subsubsections, and instead add some prose. This helps tremendously when you're studying from paper instead of from slides with a live teacher.
::You will notice that I stopped somewhere in the Positive Theodicy section because I failed to comprehend part of it, and really it took me quite some time to do all this.

::If you think I got something wrong or the quality of your article got degraded by this actioning of mine, speak out. It may be because I did not correctly understand something, because I'm not an expert on the subject, or simply because I'm not a native speaker.
::[[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 12:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


Nageh, thank you for your reply. Here is what I am doing and thinking in response:

* I appreciate how much improvement you made in your rewriting. (The many sub-sections I had were based on what seems to have been two misconceptions: (1) that I needed to do so for increased “accessibility” and (2) that every section should be able (like the Lead) to stand on its own.)

* I have cut and pasted the current draft into my computer. I am making a very few small changes in what you did, but I am making many more in what I wrote — mostly by deleting material that is not essential to the central points in order to shorten and simplify the article. Wiki instructions call for surveying the “experts” on an articles topic and presenting a concensus. But there are thousands of “experts” on the Bible and theodicy with countless differing positions. I think have tried to work in more material from my sampling of 100+ “experts” than a Wikipedia article can bear.

* I plan to do the shortening and simplifying work on what I wrote all the way through to the end of the article.

* That you are “not an expert on the subject” and “not a native speaker” are (in my mind) assets for getting the article in good shape. It helps you spot religious jargon and infelicitous verbage.

* Rather than investing your time in trying to clarify my unclarities, I sugest that you just tell me that something is “unclear” and I’ll try to clarify it. In this suggestion, I am trying to honor your statement about your time: “my time is quite limited currently.”

* When I have completed what I am doing ASAP, I would like to offer it to you for critque. (I am not suggesting that you invest the time required for further rewriting unless you want to.) Could you set up a User:Nageh/Theodicy_and_the_Bible_(second_draft) or tell me the best procedure for posting it?

* After the body of the article is done, we can get back to the Lead, a task that should not take long.

* You said that I had mentioned “some other person who you'd have liked to call for help.” It is not that I ''wanted'' to call in someone else; it is that both you and Moonriddengirl have suggested it. My idea is that when you think the article is ready to “go live,” we can ask one or two members of the '''WikiProject_Christianity''' to take a look.

Please let me know if you have other ideas for proceeding. All the best. [[User:Vejlefjord|Vejlefjord]] ([[User talk:Vejlefjord|talk]]) 16:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

:That sounds like a good plan. I have set up [[User:Nageh/Theodicy_and_the_Bible_(second_draft)]] with the content of my draft rewrite. Feel free to edit/replace as you wish.
:[[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 22:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


Nageh, I have posted the results of the work I said I would do on User:Nageh/Theodicy_and_the_Bible_(second_draft). For expediency, I simply replaced what was there, knowing that you can retrieve it. I have prefaced this “second_draft” with an explanation of what I did and rationales from Wikipedia guidelines.

The work took longer than I had anticipated because I spotted more things that needed saying to give a more accurate and clearer view of the state of the subject in the writings of “experts.” But, not being allowed to write from the knowledge of the subject in my brain, I spent many hours finding books with words that said what needed to be said. If I were writing with no knowledge of the subject except what I had gleaned from a sampling of books (as in a term paper in theological school), the task would be much easier.

I will check back on User:Nageh/Theodicy_and_the_Bible_(second_draft) Discussion/Talk in a few days to read your responses to what I posted. All the best. [[User:Vejlefjord|Vejlefjord]] ([[User talk:Vejlefjord|talk]]) 02:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

== Deprecated template ==

'''Not me''' I actually am not responsible for deprecating {{tl|cleanup-section}}; I'm just replacing its transclusions. Furthermore, I know as much about the rationale as you. If you really want me to investigate it, I guess I can, but I'm just going to replace it and nominate it for deletion (or redirection). —[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯ 22:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
:I see. Well, feel free to do whatever you think should be done. But we really should not advocate use of Cleanup-section on the [[Template:Cleanup]] page then. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 09:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

== Tip ==

Hi!

About [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nageh/extensions/TeX/texvc.js&diff=next&oldid=395522135 this], I think you can request the deletion by inserting both the template and the [[:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]] to the js page. Something like this should work:
//<nowiki>{{db-userreq}} [[Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]]</nowiki>
(the page will be displayed in the category, even if it doesn't appears in the bottom of the script page, and doing this after // a JS comment, there will be no js syntax erros if the page is still imported somewhere). [[b:pt:User:Helder.wiki|Helder]] 18:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks! That looks good indeed! [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 19:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

==Regarding my reverts for [[P_versus_NP_problem]]==
Did you read my proof for [[P_versus_NP_problem]]? What part do you disagree with?
[[User:Vivekk|Vivek]] ([[User talk:Vivekk|talk]]) 13:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

:Your proof does not make sense at all. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 13:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
:: Okay, not trolling here, and apologies for messing up the chronology of this page. Since you seem to be more knowledgeable than me (and your Wikipedia contributions confirm your ability, would you be so kind as to tell me where I've messed up. I've added a Proof by Contradiction to clarify https://sites.google.com/site/pnproof/.
Regards and thanks for your time.
[[User:Vivekk|Vivek]] ([[User talk:Vivekk|talk]]) 17:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

== MathJax at Village Pump ==

Someone's brought up MathJax at [[WP:VPT#Wikipedia Mathematics]]; you might like to join in as the one that's been working on this here.--<small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> 01:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks, I posted my comment here. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 09:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
::There is also a [http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/51624/focus=51637 new thread on wikitech-l] you may be interested ;-) [[User talk:Helder.wiki|Helder]] 22:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

== CSI effect ==

Hey mate, thanks for the feedback on [[CSI effect]]. Some of the points you raised seemed to be more focused on forensic evidence itself rather than the CSI effect. Nonetheless, I have added some new material in an attempt to address your concerns. I would greatly appreciate it if you would have a second look. Thanks! --'''[[User:Cryptic C62|Cryptic C62]] · [[User talk: Cryptic C62|Talk]]''' 23:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
==IPv6 reverting==
You know it's because of commie liberals like yourself that Conservapedia exists. Why does everyone hate on the high quality journalism of Fox News? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/213.155.151.233|213.155.151.233]] ([[User talk:213.155.151.233|talk]]) 23:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Funny that you call me like that. But since I am working in the IETF myself I think I know better than Fox News. And FYI, I'm not American, so what you intend as an insult does not work for me. Good bye, [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 23:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
::OK... but just for my edification, what's the other country besides the States that doesn't understand sarcasm? [[Special:Contributions/213.155.151.233|213.155.151.233]] ([[User talk:213.155.151.233|talk]]) 00:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
::: :) [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 09:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
::: Just as an actual comment to the quality journalism of Fox News: [http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/0/9028/z9028010O.jpg] ;) [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 18:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

== proof for [[Absolute convergence]] ==

Hollow. I translated [[Absolute convergence]] to Japanese Wikipedia. ([[ja:絶対収束]]).
In this work, I noticed that proof in section 3.2 is wrong. Then, I rearranged the proof.
Please do double check of [[Talk:Absolute_convergence#Rearrangements_and_Unconditional_Convergence_.22proof.22|the proof]]. --[[User:Loasa|Loasa]] ([[User talk:Loasa|talk]]) 08:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

== Listed ==

You've been listed.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PPdd]
I noticed your cryptography on your user page. When I was 14-17, Turing's buddy [[Alonzo Church]] was my mentor. :) [[User:PPdd|PPdd]] ([[User talk:PPdd|talk]]) 23:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
:Well, thanks for the honor! Yeah, cryptography is part of my daytime research. Nice that you have known such a celebrity!! :) [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 23:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
::Not celebrity, ''personality''. [[User:PPdd|PPdd]] ([[User talk:PPdd|talk]]) 02:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reciprocal Field Theory|RFT]] ==

Hello Nageh!

I have red your note to RFT where you recommended to place this article to Wikiversity. I am not an expert user on Wikipedia that's why I didn't know Wikiversity before. I will see it later if I have time and maybe I will decide to move this article to Wikiversity.
Regards, --[[User:Laszlohajdu|Laszlohajdu]] ([[User talk:Laszlohajdu|talk]]) 08:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

== Foreign language ==

As you know, I am a new editor (edit counts are artificially high, only a handful of articles edited and almost all were in recent weeks), so I cannot foresee policy ramifications experienced editors have already seen. But I do not understand your reasoning for not ''suggesting'' (not mandating) translation for readers. A case in point is when I was reading papers of a Chinese first year mathematics doctoral student at Stanford. As the only doctoral student chosen from China, she certainly had not cause to fake anything. She would make huge jumps in reasoning no one else made, then when questioned, she would cite one of her Chinese text books and show it to me. I made her at a minimum copy and translate the conculsion of the theorem she was citing in English, though not the proof of the result, so I could minimally verify it. The situation here is almost identical. Your argument that there is background information ordinary readers don't have may be another problem, but it shouldn't stop fixing the separate problem of verifiablity by English speakers, especially those who are experts in the area of the article, who only lack an ability to verify in another language. And the chance of error in translation, or interpretation, from a foreign language source is ''on top of'' any other problems you cited that may exist pertaining to matters other than translation. So I do not understand your reasoning not to at least ''partially'' fix this translation-verifiablity problem with a suggestion (not mandate), even if the other verifiablity problems are not addressed. [[User:PPdd|PPdd]] ([[User talk:PPdd|talk]]) 22:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

:The main objection is this: (1) If you, as a reader, do not trust an article statement then you cannot trust the translation provided either. Arguing that it is needed to verify that the source material is interpreted or summarized correctly is ridiculous, IMO. To this come two more issues: (2) Many statements are summaries from many sentences, paragraph, or even entire articles. For example, when I add information from newspapers to an article about a person or a company I usually extract a single or two sentences from the entire newspaper article, which are usually not to be found in such condensed form in the original source. Am I supposed to provide the translation of the entire article? Paragraphs? (3) Even with a trustworthy translation the sentences may be interpreted out of context, and reliable portrayal of the source may require substantial translated text. As long as I do not see where and how ''not'' providing a translation could lead to concerns regarding reliability of an article text I stay at my position. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 23:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
::(Pre-PS: I am discussing on your talk page for focus, because I do not want a large block of exchange distributed in the middle of hopefully pithy comments by others, and because you seem to reason in a way I find intelligible.) You are pointing to examples of where suggesting brief copy and translate will not work, but this only argues that the proposal may only ''partially'' solve the lack of perfect verifiability problem. Here is an example where it does help, and your points 1 and 2 would not be objections. Suppose in my Chinese grad student example I was only in correspondence with the grad student. She would then have to copy the brief theorem statement (not the proof) in Chinese script, and translate it into English. If she copied from an online text, I would have no idea what the script symbols were, but I could verify that it was actually a copy of what was online. Without the copy, I would have no idea how to even begin to look up any specifics online. I could run translation software to at least approximate a translation, and figure out the statement of the theorem, which if I did not know about, at least I could read it as to its being at least plausible. If it was not available online, the verifiability would diminish (as to its being in the text), but it would still be more verifiability than nothing, as I could run her copy in some translation software and roughly check her translation. I could then at least evaluate the theorem's plausibility, and I would have at least some verifiability. There is a case in which your (1) does not stop at least some verification, even if it is not perfect. Regarding your point (2), a large block copied would not be allowed under copyright, so there would be no brief copy and translation. But that does not mean in the cases that a brief passage could be copied and translated, this amount of verifiability is not better than none. So the proposal is not a complete solution, but it is better than nothing. Also, I think you are failing to distinguish between suggesting the proposal be followed, and mandating it. [[User:PPdd|PPdd]] ([[User talk:PPdd|talk]]) 00:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

:::This is fine. I copied it to the WP:V page because I considered it to be of interest for others as well. Now to your example. Obviously you could verify her source because she presented the translation ''within a context'' that she couldn't have made up herself. But this is exactly the problem: You need to present original statements within their context to make verification anything like reasonable. This may work for a few specific cases but for the majority of cases this will not be practical due to the amount of translated text required. This means that a translation ''may'' be provided ''if'' an editor thinks that it can improve verifiability ''or if'' another editor thinks so and requests a translation, and this is within reasonable bounds. I'm fine with something like this, but this is already said in our current policy. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 14:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*(1) I "'''add'''ed" points #3 and #4 to my "support" vote at the top. Point (3) argues for including the proposal only as a policy "suggestion" that is helpful to general readers. Point (4) argues for including the proposal as a policy "mandate".
:::*(2) I like bullet points (and when they are numbered when greater than 3), and am glad to see an editor like you who uses them.
:::*(3) I just wrote the [[Ridiculousness]] article. Your ''"Arguing that it is needed to verify that the source material is interpreted or summarized correctly is ridiculous, IMO"'' comment is covered under the Neitzsche invective example, and some of your comments, and most of the comment of others, under the [[reductio ad absurdum]] sections. You might want to pull that particular line, and supply further argument. A reason it is ''not'' ridiculous is my own ''repeated'' good intentions but errors of interpretation, in which cases I have to eat crow and change it when other editors try to verify my interpretation and find errors. A case in point is an interpretaion of a translation regarding the AfD on [[Informacion Filosofico]]. I found a source showing it had been around since 1945, arguing for some notability, as this is a long time for a philosophy journal to survive (or any journal), but it turned out my tranlation and interpretation was in error, as there was a ''different'' IF back in 1945, and the journal in question was started in 2005. A translation of the source would have fixed this straight out, but it only ended up even being noticed and fixed because it went to AfD.
:::*(4) Regarding "statements may be summaries from several sentences, paragraphs, or even an entire (e.g., newspaper) articles. Are you supposed to provide the translation of an entire article? Paragraphs?" No. Verifiablity is a matter of degree confined by reasonability. It can be increased for some examples, but there will always be counterexamples. That does not mean to give up when it can be improved for some cases, but not imroved for all.
:::*(5) Re "Assuming you provide a partial translation, how can you guarantee that the text is not interpreted out of context? By providing more translation again? How much more?". That is an argument by infinite regress. It would argue against ever providing a definition, reduction, analysis, or improvement, because there is always another step not provided for. Stephen Hawking told of Bertrand Russell discussing the heliocentric model replaing the Ptolemaic model, and the Ptolemaic model replacing the flat earth model. A little old woman stood up in the back of Russell's audience and said, "You're wrong, the world is flat and rests on the back of turtle." Russell responded, "then what does the turtle rest on?" The woman replied, "another turtle". Russell asked, "what does that turtle rest on?" The woman replied, "It's turtles all the way down." This reminded me of Dr. Suess' cover for [[Yertle the Turtle]]. I figured out how to shut that woman up when she was just a little girl asking, "But mommy, if God created everything then who created God?" The answer is simple. The Clown created God. Who created the Clown? Well, the Clown had her period really bad one week, lasting for six bad days and causing great constipation. On the seventh day, she finally had a bowel movement, giving birth to herself by shitting herself out. This explains why there is a 7 day week and 28 day lunar and menstrual cycles, as 28 is a nice multiple of 4. It also shuts up that little girl's infinite regress argument. I hope is works on you, too. :) [[User:PPdd|PPdd]] ([[User talk:PPdd|talk]]) 15:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


*Assuming you provide a partial translation, how can you guarantee that the text is not interpreted out of context? By providing more translation again? How much more?

[[User:PPdd|PPdd]] ([[User talk:PPdd|talk]]) 15:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
[[User:PPdd|PPdd]] ([[User talk:PPdd|talk]])

I think I made it clear that there may be specific cases where an additional translation provided may be helpful, which is already covered by our current policy. Ad (3): There are two questions. Why, as a reader, do you look up a source that is referenced within an article? Because you want to verify the editor did his job correctly? Or because you want to know ''more'' about a specific statement? Normally, I assume, it is the latter, in which case I will need to take the original (full) source. However, if I ''really'' doubt that a referenced statement is correct then it ''may'' be helpful to have a translation of the text in question. But then I must ask myself, why should I trust the translation when I don't even trust the statement in the article? As I said there may be very specific cases where it ''is'' helpful, but this can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis (following discussion and [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]]). Ad (5), it was a different way of asking "Where do you draw the line?" Quoting one or two sentences may be fine ''if'' they are not taken out of context. In the majority of cases I assume this will not work as simply as that.

Again, I do not say that providing a translation is completely pointless, but I think out current policy wording does it. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 16:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

== NWP FAC ==

I have tried to address the concerns you brought up. How does it look now? [[User:Titoxd|Tito<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]])</sup> 22:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

== [[Equato Encryption]] ==

Just a note, I declined the speedy deletion request. "Patent nonsense" means incomprehensible gibberish, see [[WP:PN]]. The article was clearly written and the subject is understandable (it's a complex encryption scheme that involves physically moving characters around each other like a solar system). It's also something the author made up in college some time in the last week, so I'm proposing it for deletion. I just thought I'd let you know, thanks. -- '''[[User:Atama|<span style="color:#06F">At</span><span style="color:#03B">am</span><span style="color:#006">a</span>]]'''[[User talk:Atama|<span style="color:#000">頭</span>]] 23:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

:"Patent nonsense" was the best I could find among the list for speedy deletion. It's coming close, even when written comprehensively, sorry. :) But anyway, it was not really appropriate in the end, so I dropped the editor a note on his talk page. Well, thanks for changing it to the correct deletion proposal then. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 06:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
== [[User talk:FrankFlanagan/Authentication]] ==
Nageah,
Many thanks for your excellent feedback on my draft on authentication.
I will re-work this, hopefully over the next few weeks.[[User:FrankFlanagan|FrankFlanagan]] ([[User talk:FrankFlanagan|talk]]) 19:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
==Woo Lam protocol afd discussion ==
Negeh, in you comments regarding the article you have quoted some line to be changed.
("public-key encryption with a private key" ,"signing with the public key")
i have not found these lines to appear in the article. could you maybe clarify as to what you meant.
also i would like to thank you for all your assistance.
mike. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mike2learn|Mike2learn]] ([[User talk:Mike2learn|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mike2learn|contribs]]) 10:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== why revert? ==

May I ask why you reverted my edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Displaying_a_formula&oldid=438935425]?
Is there an alternative to <math>x_2</math><math>^3</math>? I actually required it in a wikibook to avoid the PNG formula, which really is plainly ugly when it appears inline of text. --[[User:Martin Kraus|Martin Kraus]] ([[User talk:Martin Kraus|talk]]) 05:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

:Sorry, I wanted to add an edit summary but the script that would allow me to do this seems repeatedly broken. The reason for the revert is that you should not use hacks to effect an intended rendering style. If you want to force HTML then use HTML tags: <code>''x''<sub>2</sub><sup>3</sup></code>. There is also {{[[Template:Math]]}} for those who like it. Note also that apart from your math hack being semantically wrong there is also the danger that a line break will occur in the middle between the 2 and the 3. Finally, you might be interested in [[MOS:MATH]]. HTH, [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 07:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

== A barnstar for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Vitruvian Barnstar Hires.png|100px]]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Technical Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for your coding know-how that enabled the project to produce {{tl|starred}}. I know it might seem trivial to you; but it seems impressive to most of us. Good work! I look forward to seeing what else you come up with. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">— [[User:Fly by Night|<span style="font-family:Segoe print">'''''Fly by Night'''''</span>]] <font color="#000000">([[User talk:Fly by Night|<span style="font-family:Segoe print">talk</span>]])</font></span> 00:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
|}

:Wow! Thank you very much for the honor! [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 08:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

== What is so presumptuous? ==

Why did you say the nom was "presumptuous"? [[User:Maury Markowitz|Maury Markowitz]] ([[User talk:Maury Markowitz|talk]]) 14:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

:Because the article is nowhere near FAC status. Please, if you open a peer review, asking for others' efforts in reviewing, don't close it prematurely. Anyway, don't take it too personal... Cheers, [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 15:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

::Yes it is very close to FA. The only remaining issue was a point of formatting where I disagreed with the reviewer's understanding of the MoS. I did not close the PR, it did it automatically due to a problem with the automation. Perhaps you could take the time to be sure you understand exactly what happened before passing judgement on my actions. [[User:Maury Markowitz|Maury Markowitz]] ([[User talk:Maury Markowitz|talk]]) 01:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

:::Perhaps you could take the time to react to my comments I left at your PR, as I have indicated already on SandyGeorgia's talk page? Up to this time you have decided to ignore my comments for your close-to-FAC article!!! [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 07:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

::::I'm sorry, I do [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Space_debris/archive2 not see any], and it doesn't seem that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Space_debris/archive2&action=history you made any edits]. [[User:Maury Markowitz|Maury Markowitz]] ([[User talk:Maury Markowitz|talk]]) 12:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

:::::Sigh. This is the link to the FAC nomination. The link I provided at SandyGeorgia's talk page is to the Peer Review (PR): [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Space debris/archive2]] (copied from SandyGeorgia's talk page). I am aware that you probably don't have this page on your watchlist but really you should have followed the link when I posted it. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 15:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

==Anonymous-key cryptography==
Hi Nageh,
I have revised the article on Anonymous Key Cryptography. Is it still too specific with the algorithm exposed? a closed loop system which uses user credentials and bypasses the PKI system is still generic and should merit an entry somewhere. I had written a generic article on anonymous-key cryptography under the general heading Modern Cryptography under the PKI entry. It has been deleted. I am including it here for your consideration and advice.

Anonymous Key Cryptography
There is another way to authenticate users, transactions and files called anonymous-key cryptography. Anonymous-key cryptography takes advantage of the rapidity of symmetric key encryption in conjunction with a specific software application to produce extremely high levels of security, generating key strengths of over 256 bits. In this system there is a single key – generated using AES and user credentials such as a user-id and password, smartcard, biometric, or a combination thereof. That same key encrypts and decrypts information in a closed-loop system that does not rely on third-party authentication.

There are no handshakes or key exchanges in anonymous-key cryptography. There is only one key and the software on both ends that recognizes key validity and provides encryption or decryption services. In this system, for example, an online purchaser would browse to the web site of a seller. To ensure security for the buyer, the seller has integrated an anonymous-key cryptographic application into their transaction service. The purchaser receives a small java applet which asks them to provide their credentials during the normal course of account creation. The seller’s system then uses this information in a cryptographic module to create a very strong key for all transactions. The seller’s system saves the key in encrypted form (using the same cryptographic module) so it is protected from any but a brute force attack and then is vulnerable only if the physical server it resides on is stolen. Since only user credentials are exposed, the key remains safe from spoofing, replay, and man-in-the-middle attacks. Even if a key-logger captures the credential, the key – because it is generated elsewhere using AES -- remains safe.
[[User:Hdrugge|Hdrugge]] ([[User talk:Hdrugge|talk]]) 21:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi Nageh,

I will work on fixing the article - thanks for your feedback.

[[Special:Contributions/207.6.253.182|207.6.253.182]] ([[User talk:207.6.253.182|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 17:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Coding theory query(very sorry really) ==

User:DVdm passed through the alternative account for this User (i.e.Neutralcurrent) and noted edits considered vandalism.This edit (Coding theory)didn't seem like vandalism either, although there were two elsewhere which needed attention.In conclusion pressed rollback invesigating this function.[[User:Drift chambers|Drift chambers]] ([[User talk:Drift chambers|talk]]) 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User_talk:Drift_chambers"

82.36.156.186 is my IP but the screen showed was username logged on, so was a genuine mistake rather than an effort at surreptitiousness,was intending to retain links[[User:Drift chambers|Drift chambers]] ([[User talk:Drift chambers|talk]]) 11:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

== Srinivasa Ramanujan ==

I did not intend to reinstate the text (although if you'd wanted the answer to that question, you should have asked me), I tried to close the faulty div that Gadget removed just after. The edit conflict situation clearly ruined that plan. Please, I don't deserve three question marks. <span style="color:#3A3A3A">'''Grandiose''' </span><span style="color:gray">([[User:Grandiose|me]], [[User_talk:Grandiose|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Grandiose|contribs]]) </span> 16:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

:Ok, my bad, I should have assumed more [[WP:AGF|good faith]], didn't consider an edit conflict. Sorry, and cheers, [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 17:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
::OK, keep up the good work you appear to be doing! <span style="color:#3A3A3A">'''Grandiose''' </span><span style="color:gray">([[User:Grandiose|me]], [[User_talk:Grandiose|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Grandiose|contribs]]) </span> 17:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

== Cryptography ==

Oh no, that was meant for Drift chambers. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. '''''<font color="#FF0000">[[User:Hut 8.5|Hut 8.5]]</font>''''' 11:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

:Ok, thanks for clarifying. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 11:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

== Common vs proper nouns in telecom ==

Hi, I'll revert the ones you've named on my page; can you help me to understand what absolutely must be uppercased in telecom? It's well-known for uppercasing any noun in sight, like a scattergun. What is a good rule of thumb? Anything that ends in these words?
*System
*Framework
*Protocol
*Model
*Network (but what about [[Generic Access Network]]?)

Can you add to them? [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 12:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

:It's true that telecom folks tend to uppercase about every noun describing a technical function. Nouns should be upper-cased whenever it describes a specific standardized function or protocol, but it should be written in lower-case letters when it refers only generally to some functionality. Terms ending with ''Protocol'' usually are specific solutions and should be upper-cased. Terms ending with ''network'' usually describe classes of solutions, and should be lower-cased – I would also lower-case [[generic access network]] therefore. On the other words you mention I think these would need to be handled on a case-by-case basis. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 13:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
:::"High-speed packet access"... can't revert to upper case with hyphen, which is a bore. It will take upper case without hyphen, and lower case with. Do I need to do a request a move?
:::Multi-Protocol Label Switching—I removed the request, but there is a thread on the talk page asking whether it's a protocol or not, just to emphasise how hard it can be to tell whether a topic is just the uppercasing of a common noun (process, technique) because it's abbreviated with caps (disapproved of by WP), or whether it really is a proper name. "Frame relay" says its a technology; I see now you need to read on to learn that it's a protocol. OK, care needed. May I dump some titles here for you to tick or cross when in doubt, which looks like it might be much of the time? [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 13:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
:::One more I've downcased that I'm now concerned about: [[System architecture evolution]] ... it's not a standard itself, but a core architecture of a specific standard. I won't pester you again (today). [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 13:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Yes, you would need to request a move if the new title is already assigned.
::::MPLS is a protocol, I replied on the talk page.
::::I would think that [[System architecture evolution]] should be upper-cased, though I agree it is sometimes difficult to tell.
::::HTH, and thanks for coming back to me on this. Gotta go now. :) [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 13:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::Nageh, I've raised the matter of the sorry state of [[WP:Manual of Style/Computing]], at the [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style|Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#WP:MOS.2FComputing]]. The copyright issues, BTW, are not germane to the point I'm raising, but I do think they need a mention in the MoS subpage. Are you in a position to advise on proposals for inclusion/change in this MoS subpage? Is it on your watchlist? [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 01:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::Sorry, busy at the moment, no time to look at it. Maybe later. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 20:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

== Your advice? ==

Hi, could you let me know if this ''shouldn't'' be downcased?

[[Integrated Services Digital Network]]. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 03:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

:It refers to a specific standard, so it must be upper-cased. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 20:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

== [[Digital Audio Tape]] ==

It ''was'' patented originally, but I believe it can be reasonably assumed to have passed into generic use. Please let me know if I shouldn't proceed with a move request. [[User:Tony1|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font ></span>]] 02:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

:I am not convinced that "digital audio tape" has entered standard usage. At best, it would be a synonym for the standard, i.e., people say "digital audio tape" but mean the tape based on the specific technique "Digital Audio Tape". What about the [[Compact Disc]]? Isn't it still put in upper-case letters? While I don't think people actually say "compact disc" rather than "CD" I don't think they would put it in lower-case letters either. Did you do a Google book/scholar check on the spelling? It seems upper-casing would still be appropriate. After all, there have certainly been competing digital audio tape technologies, but the one got named as such. Compare [[Compact Cassette]] (''specific'' and a trademark) with [[compact audio cassette]] (''generic''). Digital Audio Tape is (or was) a trademark as well. I would leave it upper-cased. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 17:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

== Remote Operations Service Element protocol move revert ==

I did not revert your move. I moved the page per the discussion and before I could get it closed the page was moved. I just figured that I someone how dropped a word in entering the new title as my edit summaries stated. And I believe that you supported the move I did. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 23:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

== [[Aba CM Enablement]] ==

Hi, any reason this tool can't have a small "e"? I'm still learning about this difficult issue. [[User:Tony1|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font ></span>]] 13:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

:It is the name of the software, and not about enablement of Aba CM. But don't worry, I have sent it to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aba CM Enablement|AfD]]. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 20:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
::OK, thanks. Hmm ... it underlines why capitalisation needs to be cleaned up: if used frivolously, the casual reader/editor can't really tell whether it's the enablement of Aba CM (which is how I took it). If capitalisation is used consistently, we won't doubt when we see it. [[User:Tony1|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font ></span>]] 04:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

== New feature doesn't work in MathJax ==

Hello. Could you look at [[User_talk:Nageh/mathJax#MathJax_prevents_Greek_letters_from_getting_rendered]]? I've waited eight months for this, and when it's finally here, I find that MathJax may be the thing preventing me from using it. Thanks. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] ([[User talk:Michael Hardy|talk]]) 20:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

:Try it now. Btw, no need to ping me on the talk page, I am watching the mathJax page and I don't have mail notifications activated. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 20:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Works now. Thank you! [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] ([[User talk:Michael Hardy|talk]]) 21:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

== Verifiability essay ==

It is now very obvious that many editors do not understand the point of the "verifiability, not truth" policy. I think your comment at the RfC was very clear and insightful. As you may know we have an essay: [[Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth]], meant to explain this phrase to newcomers. Anyone can edit an essay, and I just made some edits to try to make it clearer but (as with just about anything at WP) I think it can still stand improvement. Would you read it over and see if you can improve it any? If the policy changes the essay will have to be changed, but in the meantime, it ought to help newcomers understand what we mean, and should explain things as clearly as possible [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 15:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

:Thank you for the flattering comment. I'll see what I can do as soon as I find some more time. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 12:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

==I didn't understand the page : [[LOGARITHMS]]==
Hi,Nageh can you please send a simpler version of the page: [[logarithms]] on my talk page?
[[User:Will Gladstone|talk]][[User:Will Gladstone|Will Gladstone]] ([[User talk:Will Gladstone|talk]]) 08:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

===Can you help me===
I am writing an article on mathematics.Please will you guide me on how to write mathematical equations and insert photos in it?or you can give me its link.[[User:Will Gladstone|talk]][[User:Will Gladstone|Will Gladstone]] ([[User talk:Will Gladstone|talk]]) 08:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

==Office Hours==
Hey {{PAGENAME}}! I'm just dropping you a message because you've commented on (or expressed an interest in) the [[WP:AFT|Article Feedback Tool]] in the past. If you don't have any interest in it any more, ignore the rest of this message :).

If you ''do'' still have an interest or an opinion, good or bad, we're holding an [[m:IRC office hours|office hours]] session tomorrow at 19:00 GMT/UTC in #wikimedia-office to discuss completely changing the system. In attendance will be myself, [[User:Howief|Howie Fung]] and [[User:Fabrice Florin|Fabrice Florin]]. All perspectives, opinions and comments are welcome :).

I appreciate that not everyone can make it to that session - it's in work hours for most of North and South America, for example - so if you're interested in having another session at a more America-friendly time of day, leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there :). Regards, [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 14:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

== MathJax integration into stock MediaWiki ==

Hi Nageh!

I'm looking into improvements to math rendering, of which adapting sane, scalable client-side rendering should give the biggest gain. We'll still need the PNG renderings as a fallback for unsupported browsers, but in the future I expect most readers will be seeing MathJax-rendered equations in their browsers...

Can you give any advice on customizations you've made to MathJax itself or its rendering modes to fit with usage on Wikipedia? Anything I should look out for while heading down this road?

Thanks! --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 23:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

:Starting a [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2011-November/056636.html thread on wikitech-l mailing list], will put notes into an [[mw:RFC|RFC page on mediawiki.org]] in a bit. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 00:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice! For a start, have a look at [[User:Nageh/mathJax.js]] and [[User:Nageh/mathJax/config/TeX-AMS-texvc_HTML.js]] (the uncompressed parts). More comments tomorrow. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 01:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is a list of changes I applied to the original MathJax sources:
# Custom combined TeX-AMS-texvc-to-HTML/MathML file: [[User:Nageh/mathJax/config/TeX-AMS-texvc_HTML.js]].
# Support for texvc commands. See integrated file texvc.js in [[User:Nageh/mathJax/config/TeX-AMS-texvc_HTML.js]].
# Heuristic detection of inline vs. display maths. Heuristic used: parent HTML element is "DD" and maths element is the only child, then interpret as "display maths", otherwise as "inline maths". Also, if the maths element is classified as "inline maths" but the element is the first child in the parent "DD", precede the maths with "\displaystyle": this effectively treats the maths as a display-style formula but without the newline of ordinary display maths formulas. See ConvertMath() function in [[User:Nageh/mathJax/config/TeX-AMS-texvc_HTML.js]].
# Replacement of initial "\scriptstyle" by "\textstyle" and of initial "\scriptscriptstyle" by "\scriptstyle" in "inline maths" elements. This considers a common hack on Wikipedia, which intends to match the TeX font height to that of the surrounding text.
# Hacks to support \oiint and \oiiint. Inadequately solved, please consider extra font support for these symbols (they are not part of the fonts distributed by the MathJax folks -- please talk to them for other font symbols.)
# Hack to support \color commands. Not needed anymore since upcoming MathJax 2.0 provides an extension with TeX \color support.
# Custom rendering settings, among others, to render \text{} content in ordinary HTML font. See [[User:Nageh/mathJax.js]].
# Support for user customization.
# Support for user-provided macros overriding macros defined in extension. See the Register.StartupHook() call in mathJax.Config of [[User:Nageh/mathJax.js]].
# Support for wikEd and ajaxPreview. See mathJax.Init() of [[User:Nageh/mathJax.js]].
# Conditional loading of MathJax only when maths element are present.
# Other initial fixes, which are integrated/addressed in upcoming MathJax 2.0 now.
I think this is all. Hope that helps, and thanks for your upcoming efforts! [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 13:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What to watch out for:<br>
MathJax does not implement that complex macro vs. primitive processing of TeX. This means that MathJax will parse arguments always in a "greedy" way, i.e., it does not consider that some macros ''require'' more than one parameter. Note that this also creates incompatibilities in regular TeX when packages override primitives or macros with other macros, but importantly it means that there will be some statements that render fine with the current MediaWiki renderer but require additional braces to delimit parameters with MathJax. See [[User_talk:Nageh/mathJax#underline]] and [[mathJax#The_appearance_of_certain_fractions]] for examples. See [[User_talk:Nageh/mathJax]] for a list of issues to came up during usage of my extension. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 13:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

:Awesome, that's lots of useful stuff! :D I've [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31406#c9 made an initial stab] at integrating the MathJax source into our Math extension and having it auto-launch with some of your customizations & initialization code. I should be able to tweak that further so it replaces the default image forms as well as the text format; and also of course adding a switch in prefs so you can disable/enable it individually. (Probably just a 3-way selector between PNG, source, and MathJax, where the MathJax initially loads images and replaces them for highest compatibility?) --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 01:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

::One realization could be to have two options for "TeX only" and "PNG rendering", and an extra checkbox to override the maths with MathJax rendering. Not sure how displaying images before MathJax rendering works in practice: it could be that the images are already replaced ''before'' the typesetting step, in which case downloading images would be pointless. Also, note that MathJax's MathML output rendering, which I usually use these days on Firefox, is fast enough to not warrant the downloading of images. I'd say, play with it. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 15:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

==NON-IMPLEMENTED INTEGRALS \oiint + \oiiint==

Hello. I notice you are a prominant editor on the [[help:displaying a formula]] talk page so I have repeated an entry here to bring it to attention. It is a proposed workaround for closed double and triple integrals not yet possible with the current LaTeX on Wiki. Please read it when you have time and see what you think. Its only a suggestion - i'm not forcefully trying to spread this on wikipedia.

_____________________________________

I have a workaround to propose for creating integrals requiring \oiint and \oiiint.
*Use these image (without the thumbnails), without chainging the size, in front of a the integrand expression.
*In the actual LaTeX syntax, type {\frac{}{}}_{REGION} at the very start, in which REGION can be replaced by any symbol representing the closed surface or volume of the region in question.

Here are some random examples where it might be used (if in the situation these are applied to, a closed volume is needed):

* No clue:
:<math>V=</math>[[File:OiiintLaTeX.jpeg|32px|"32px"]]<math>{\frac{}{}}_\Omega \frac{F(x,y,z)}{x^2 + y^2 + z^2} {\rm d}V</math>
* [[Divergence theorem]]:
: [[File:OiiintLaTeX.jpeg|32px|"32px"]]<math>{\frac{}{}}_V ( \nabla \cdot \bold{F} ) \cdot {\rm d}V =</math> [[File:OiintLaTeX.jpeg|28px|"28px"]] <math>{\frac{}{}}_S \bold{F} \cdot {\rm d}\bold{S} </math>
* [[Stoke's theorem]]:
: [[File:OiintLaTeX.jpeg|28px|"28px"]]<math>{\frac{}{}}_S ( \nabla \times \bold{F} ) \cdot {\rm d}\bold{S} = \oint_L \bold{F} \cdot {\rm d}\boldsymbol{\ell} </math>
*[[Continuity equation]]:
: <math>\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}t}</math> [[File:OiiintLaTeX.jpeg|32px|"32px"]] <math>{\frac{}{}}_V \rho {\rm d}V + </math> [[File:OiintLaTeX.jpeg|28px|"28px"]] <math>{\frac{}{}}_S \bold{F} \cdot {\rm d}\bold{S} = \Sigma </math>

Just a suggestion.

_____________________________________

--[[User:F&#61;q(E+v^B)|F&#61;q(E+v^B)]] ([[User talk:F&#61;q(E+v^B)|talk]]) 18:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

:Replied at the [[Help_talk:Displaying_a_formula#NON-IMPLEMENTED_INTEGRALS_.5Coiint_.2B_.5Coiiint|help talk page]]. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 20:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

==5G==
Hello Nageh,
I start apologising for any eventual error I am doing, I am new as a Wikipedia contributor. I put a deletion flag on a wikipedia voice (5G), because I find it very bad, very partisan and strongly speculative. Other users seem thinking the same, and I ask to myself why did you delete it. Maybe I have done an error putting it into the voice itself?
Thank you for any help you can provide.
3enix. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:3enix|3enix]] ([[User talk:3enix|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/3enix|contribs]]) 15:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:You did nothing wrong in principle, and I agree with you that the article is highly speculative, probably to the point exceeding what is generally accepted on Wikipedia, but the talk page of the article showed no consensus on deletion of the article. As such, deletion of this article should go through a [[WP:AfD|discussion]], as I indicated in my edit summary. The easiest way to do this is to use [[WP:Twinkle|Twinkle]], which you can select in "My preferences", and then tag the article with XFD (Anything for deletion) of the TW (Twinkle) tab in the upper right corner. If you cannot figure it out I can put up the article for deletion on behalf of you. Hope that helps, and all the best with your future editing!
:PS: I'll post a few links on your talk page that should help you get acquainted with our core editing policies and guidelines. Also note that you should always sign your posts using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 16:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

== Berger code ==

How does the Berger code correct errors?

Perhaps [[Talk:Error detection and correction#Berger code]] is a better place to discuss this question.
I suspect I am misunderstanding something you mentioned years ago.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Error_detection_and_correction&action=historysubmit&diff=336176585&oldid=336173013]
--[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] ([[User talk:DavidCary|talk]]) 03:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

==Computer hardware==
Please understand the difference between the general term hardware that – when it comes to electronics and computers – may refer to any electronic circuit, such as single-purpose circuits designed to fulfill one particular job, and between computer hardware, which is hardware that is part of a computer, a general-purpose (or special- but multiple-purpose) device that can be custom-programmed to fulfill different jobs. Do not simply change all instances of hardware to computer hardware. Thanks. Nageh (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

:Hi, what you are describing sounds to me like a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_purpose_computer&direction=prev&oldid=96056446 Special purpose computer]—[[Special purpose computer]] now redirects to [[microcontroller]]. So, technically some might still consider it [[computer hardware]], but not a [[general purpose computer]] (which redirects to [[computer]]). I want to avoid links to [[hardware]], which per [[WP:OVERLINK]] is so general as not to be a useful link, i.e. "''What aisle of the [[hardware store]] has [[hardware]] supporting the [[Advanced Encryption Standard]]?''." In other words, while one option would be to not link ''hardware'' at all, better would be a more specific link, and even more specific than ''computer hardware'' would be even better. What would work best for these type of articles: [[microcontroller]], [[digital circuit]] or something else? Or we could say ''[[microcontroller]]s or general purpose [[computer hardware]]'' to cover them both. Thanks. [[User:Wbm1058|Wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 00:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

::No. A microcontroller is a general-purpose computer, that redirect is incorrect. An example for a special-purpose computer is a [[GPU]]. Compare that to a [[GPGPU]], which is a generally programmable GPU. I understand that linking to [[hardware]] is not quite helpful; probably, linking to [[electronic circuit]] is the best solution when no computer component is implied. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 00:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

:::Thanks, one thing I like about editing Wikipedia is that I learn stuff while I'm doing it. The distinction between special-purpose and general-purpose [[graphics hardware]] is very helpful. I just observed that while [[special purpose computer]] redirects to [[microcontroller]], [[special-purpose computer]] redirects to [[embedded system]]. It's not the first time I've run across redirects with cosmetic differences that went to different articles. For consistency, these should both go to the same place. Neither [[microcontroller]] or [[embedded system]] defines '''special-purpose computer'''. Seems like [[embedded system]] is better, at least the last paragraph of the lede discusses the issue:
::::In general, "embedded system" is not a strictly definable term, as most systems have some element of extensibility or programmability. For example, handheld computers share some elements with embedded systems such as the operating systems and microprocessors that power them, but they allow different applications to be loaded and peripherals to be connected. Moreover, even systems that do not expose programmability as a primary feature generally need to support software updates. On a continuum from "general purpose" to "embedded", large application systems will have subcomponents at most points even if the system as a whole is "designed to perform one or a few dedicated functions", and is thus appropriate to call "embedded".
:::Should [[special-purpose computer]] redirect to [[embedded system]] (and get defined in that article), or should a new article be created, with [[special-purpose computer]] and [[general-purpose computer]] sharing the same article? [[General-purpose computer]] just redirects to [[computer]], where the term is mentioned multiple times, though perhaps not fully defined and contrasted with special-purpose. Maybe if there's not enough content to justify a full article, a new section in [[computer]], ''General- and special-purpose computers''? [[User:Wbm1058|Wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 21:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
::::Hm. On second thought, [[microcontroller]]s are border cases: while they are generally programmable they are used for special purpose applications. Nonetheless, the terms are probably best redirected to and explained in the [[computer]] article. While they could possibly be introduced somewhere in the discussion of the History section, as early designs such as the ABC were clearly special-purpose, the issue is probably best brought up at the article's talk page. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 23:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::Good idea. Discussion now at [[Talk:Computer#Definition of computer]]. Feel free to add comments. [[User:Wbm1058|Wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 02:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::I will add my thoughts in an ongoing discussion. Note that I have moved your section down to the bottom of the page. It is generally a good idea to not intersperse new comments within older sections as people will miss them. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 13:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incentive sites]] ==

The deletion debate has been closed as a merge to [[Incentive program]]; please help extract content from the page history of [[Incentive sites]] and merge it to the other article. [[User:Deryck Chan|Der]][[User talk:Deryck Chan|yck C.]] 17:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

== Plain html ==

Hi there, I used plain html in a mathematical article http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ordinary_Differential_Equations/Maximum_domain_of_solution and you told me it was not a good thing . I hadnt really read the manual of style (so lazy), but now I took a quick look at it and I still cant figure out some things. What do you think would be the best non html solutions for:

- making theorems/examples stick out. I like putting a box around them, but is this a good thing? How to do that in without html? Or is it better to stick to the traditional boldface '''Theorem''' and thats all? (I dont like that very much specially because it is often hard to see where the theorem ends and a comment begins.)

- I really like to have key affirmations stick out, followed by explanation. I feel that this way the reader can first look at all the key affirmations, and then try to understand them. For example:

''''Ice cream is good'''

This is true because it is creamy and full of sugar and because...

Should I give this up altogether and just write one affirmation per paragraph

Ice cream is good because it is creamy and full of sugar and because...

I would like to make subsections, but I sometimes feel that there is too little text for a subsection.

Thanks for the suggestions and I will keep looking at the manual. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ciro.santilli|Ciro.santilli]] ([[User talk:Ciro.santilli|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ciro.santilli|contribs]]) 14:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:You really need to be careful with adding theorems to Wikipedia articles. Remember that Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTTEXTBOOK|not a text book]]. Specifically, this means that formulations of theory as theorems should only be done when they are essential to the topic of an article. Try to integrate what the theorem says into the text flow instead. I advise you to read the [[WP:Manual of Style/Mathematics|Manual of Style for Mathematics]] guideline and the [[WP:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs|essay on proofs]]. Article [[Kleene's recursion theorem]] might give you an idea on accepted formatting of theorems in articles. Hope that helps. Btw, the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics|WikiProject Mathematics]] is a helpful place for questions on editing maths-related articles. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 16:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

== Probable sock online now ==

Hi, I saw your dialogue with Arthur on JamesBWatson's talk page regarding a floating IP sock from Kalamazoo Michigan (probably the Kalamazoo Kid). FYI, I think [[User_talk:99.181.133.202|they are online right now]] with a different IP despite a 30 day block and playing coy. Ordinarily I would not assume coyness, but assume good faith, but the confluence of Kalamazoo IP staring with the first three numbers of a prior IP sock, plus edit warring over this collapse on this low traffic article is enough evidence for me to feel comfy saying "[[WP:SOCK]]".
[[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 06:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

:Thank you for the additional comment. Upon checking [[User:Arthur Rubin/IP list|Arthur Rubin's list]] of edits by said person, I do realize that story has been going on for a while despite repeated requests to stop posting links and nothing else. I sympathize with your reaction, and I certainly do not oppose any reverts or blocks carried out. Cheers, [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 18:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

== Vandalism reverts ==

I got your message - I didn't realise it was necessary to reply. [[User:Denisarona|Denisarona]] ([[User talk:Denisarona|talk]]) 18:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

:Ok, just wanted to make sure my post was not understood as some mere complaint but as a well-intentioned advice. Thanks for the reply! [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 18:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
==DVB==
Good call. I hope I did what you intended. I leave it to you to check that the necessary refs and some info are in the article to which it's been redirect, if you think it appropriate. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 01:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

:Thanks, perfect! I'll provide some new content when I find the time but for now the redirect will do. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 01:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

==Deletion policy - Editor Retention linkage==
Hi Nageh-- pulling out on part of your comment:
:''going at full length how valuable the contributor's time is and that we do not appreciate his gift hurts me as a long-standing contributor who is putting considerable time and efforts into making contributions that are worthwhile and of quality. It implies that the time of regular editors is less worth than his, and we should just keep his contribution because it hurts his feelings''

I just want to say that what I talked about "My valuable time", I really didn't mean me personally. That entire section is intentionally generic. I do NOT think my time is more valuable than yours, and I'm very sorry you got that impression.

My focus was very much on the "general trends" here, not my specific case. You'll note I didn't link to any specific deletion discussion in my VP remarks. I'm trying to talk about how I suspect the "average" person feels, based on having gone through the experience myself. And then, I'm trying to understand if that maybe explains why wikipedia is having problems.

You mention you've gotten very upset when your stuff has been deleted-- everyone seems to have gotten demoralized over it. Don't we have to ask-- how often is deletion REALLY necessary?

Illegal content has to be delete, BLP issues, etc. But is "non-notable" really something that has to be "deleted"?

Couldn't we just move it to an incubator or an "archive" or something a little less "fuck you"ish than delete?

Again this isn't about me, this isn't a systemic problem. We are losing editors, and this could be why.

If your teacher gives you an F, fine-- but you expect to have the paper graded and returned to you so have it, read it again, show it to others, and learn from your mistakes. If, instead, teacher announced your paper was so bad it was "F-" then proceeds to burns your paper in front of you so it will be completely destroyed and erased from existence-- that's a hell of a lot worse.

I know that's a silly metaphor, but you get my point. Isn't there ANYTHING less harsh than truly ERASING good-faith contributions? --[[User:HectorMoffet|HectorMoffet]] ([[User talk:HectorMoffet|talk]]) 11:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

:Thank you for your post. I will respond in the ongoing discussion at the village pump. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 13:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

:Please note that I did ''not'' say that I "got very upset" when my stuff has been deleted. I said that having stuff deleted naturally is an ''emotional'' situation, that does not mean that it gets me demoralized as long as the arguments for deletion are justified and presented in a constructive manner. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 14:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

== Wikipedia self-referencing ==

I have no idea what you mean by "Further note that the {{tl|cleanup}} template is for Wikipedia maintaining and not on the topic of an article." {{tl|cleanup}} is used in article space see [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Cleanup]]. The place to discuss this is not on our user talk pages but in the section [[Template talk:Cleanup#Notification]], so that the conversation is in a public and relevant location. -- [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|PBS]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 11:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

== User script listings cleanup project ==
I'm leaving this message for all recent contributors to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts]].

This scripts listing page is in dire need of cleanup. To facilitate this, I've created a new draft listing at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts cleanup]]. You're invited to list scripts you know to be currently working and relevant. Eventually this draft page can replace the current scripts listing.

If you'd like to comment or collaborate on this proposal, see the discussion I started here: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts#Scripts listing cleanup project]]. Thanks! <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#000080">'''Equazcion'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Equazcion|'''<sup>(<span style="color:#007BA7">talk</span>)</sup>''']]</small> 00:19, 25 Mar 2012 (UTC)</font>

== FAC ==

Hi I just wanted to say thank you for your plans to review [[Stephen_Hawking]], as it happens, the nomination has now been closed as unsuccessful - but it would be really great to get any and all comments you have, I'm keen to make the article as good as possible even if it's not going to be FA. Cheers, [[User:Fayedizard|Fayedizard]] ([[User talk:Fayedizard|talk]]) 21:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
== Invitation to events in June and July: bot, script, template, and Gadget makers wanted ==

I invite you to the [[mw:Berlin_Hackathon_2012|yearly Berlin hackathon]], 1-3 June. [https://wmberlin.eventbrite.com/ Registration is now open]. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in [https://wmberlin.eventbrite.com/ the registration form].

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about [[mw:ResourceLoader|ResourceLoader]] and Gadgets ([[mw:Gadget kitchen|extending functionality with JavaScript]]), the switch to [[mw:Lua scripting|Lua for templates]], [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata Wikidata], and [[mw:Wikimedia Labs|Wikimedia Labs]].

We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

I also thought you might want to know about [[mw:MediaWiki developer meetings|other upcoming events]] where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the [[mw:API|web API]] for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the [[wm2012:Hackathon|developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC]] and [[mw:MediaWiki developer meetings|our other events]].

Best wishes!
- [[mw:User:Sumanah|Sumana Harihareswara]], Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or [[mw:User talk:Sumanah|at mediawiki.org]].
[[mw:User:Sumanah|Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator]] 23:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

== Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation article ==

Hi, first of all I'm sorry if this is not the right place where to post a message for you.

My contribution to the article Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation didn't want to be a promotion of a personal work.
Simply it was an extension of the content by inserting an external reference to a work that had been appreciated and mentioned in several academic articles.
I wish to point out that the content of the external reference perfectly fulfill the topic of the wikipedia article.
So, I sincerely don't understand the reason why this information couldn't be accepted.
Anyway, to prove that it was not my intention to promote a link for personal purposes, it will not follow any action from my side if you will still consider my contribution out of scope.
Thanks.
Regards.
--[[User:Tremannike|Tremannike]] ([[User talk:Tremannike|talk]]) 10:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Tremannike

== [[Block cipher]] ==

Just wanted to thank you for all of the work you've put into the [[block cipher]] article over the past several days. It's looking a lot better now! Cheers. -- [[User:Mesoderm|Mesoderm]] ([[User talk:Mesoderm|talk]]) 21:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
:Thanks! Your words mean quite a lot to me! [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 21:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

== [[Bishop's Cipher]] ==

You deleted my page "bishop's cipher" for copyright infringement. The images were mine and I own the website waxwingpuzzleco.com. This page has been deleted in error. How can I restore it as soon as possible? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Donald Crease|Donald Crease]] ([[User talk:Donald Crease|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Donald Crease|contribs]]) 18:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:<s>Replied [[Talk:Bishop's Cipher|here]].</s> Now at [[User_talk:Donald_Crease|your talk page]]. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 19:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see. I was not aware the images needed to be donated to the wikipedia commons. I'll do that asap. How can I get the page back though? Is that possible? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.114.192.78|99.114.192.78]] ([[User talk:99.114.192.78|talk]]) 21:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:This is not just about the images and license permissions. Check your talk page and the notability and spam/advertising policies and guidelines I brought up, I doubt that your article once re-instantiated will survive an [[WP:AfD|article-for-deletion discussion]]. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 22:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

== Giraffe ==

Thank you for reviewing the article. i hope you'll make your decision soon. [[User:LittleJerry|LittleJerry]] ([[User talk:LittleJerry|talk]]) 15:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

== Barnstar ==

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|[[File:Barnstar of Integrity Hires.png|100px]]|[[File:Mensch5.png|100px]]}}
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Integrity'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | People tend to become entrenched in their views (especially on Wikipedia) and I'm finding it pretty rare to see someone admit the other side has a made a good point. I'm probably guilty of the same -- which made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&diff=488240082&oldid=488239326 this response] all the more surprising and heartening. I therefore force upon you this Barnstar of Integrity. There's no cash reward, but someone of your integrity does these things for their virtue alone :) '''<font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#008;">Equazcion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Equazcion|<sup>(<span style="color:#007BA7">talk</span>)</sup>]]</small>''' 14:38, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)</font>
|}

:Wow, thank you! This present is certainly surprising as well! For sure I am not gonna trade it against cash. :) [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 16:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

== Funkschlüssel ==

Hi. Could you look at [[Talk:Enigma machine#Funkschlüssel]]? I'm wondering if the translation of "Funkschlüssel" has been corrupted by the "remote key" used for an automobile. [[User:Glrx|Glrx]] ([[User talk:Glrx|talk]]) 17:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

:The change was wrong. I have reverted it. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 17:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

:: Thanks. [[User:Glrx|Glrx]] ([[User talk:Glrx|talk]]) 18:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

== Copyedit ==

So what phases do you feel are stiff? [[User:LittleJerry|LittleJerry]] ([[User talk:LittleJerry|talk]]) 03:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

:Any more? [[User:LittleJerry|LittleJerry]] ([[User talk:LittleJerry|talk]]) 23:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

::I already [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_candidates%2FGiraffe%2Farchive4&diff=489311718&oldid=489309796 struck] my copy-edit request. ;) For most of the part, the text reads well. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 23:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

== Please see ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Pubmed_.2F_Wiley]--[[User:Shrike|Shrike]] ([[User talk:Shrike|talk]]) 15:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
:Thank you very much! [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 16:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

== A barnstar for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Team Barnstar Hires.png|100px]]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Teamwork Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for the help with the [[pi]] article .. if it ever gets to Featured Article status (and why shouldn't it!) you'll deserve a lot of the credit. [[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 14:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
|}
:It was a pleasure! Thanks for the barnstar! [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 14:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
:Of course, I was only an assistant and you were the master! :) [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 14:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

== Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready ==

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through [[HighBeam Research]].
* Account activation codes have been emailed.
* To activate your account: 1) Go to [http://www.highbeam.com/prof1 http://www.highbeam.com/prof1]
* The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
* If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to [[WP:HighBeam/Support]], or ask [[User:Ocaasi]]. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
* A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at [[WP:HighBeam/Citations]].
* HighBeam would love to hear feedback at [[WP:HighBeam/Experiences]]
* Show off your HighBeam access by placing <nowiki>{{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}}</nowiki> on your userpage
* When the 1-year period is up, check the [[WP:HighBeam/Applications|applications page]] to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, [[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]]<sup> [[User talk:Ocaasi|t ]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Ocaasi| c]]</sup> 04:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
<!-- EdwardsBot 0266 -->

== Question on pi SVG pic ==

[[File:Record_pi_approximations.svg|thumb]]
Thanks again for that pi history illustration. A question: The reader is reading the [[pi]] article, and sees the picture. The fonts are tiny in the thumbnail, so the user clicks on it to enlarge; the enlarged pictures is only 512 pixels wide, and the fonts are still a bit too small. Question: Is there a way to change things so that when the user clicks on the SVG thumbnail, the default bitmap shown is about 800 or 1000 pixels wide? I know the user can click on the "1000 pix" button but that is an extra step. Does the SVG file itself have an internal "recommended bitmap size" ... it seems to be set to 512 now; can that be increased to 800 or more? --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 17:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

:The image does include a nominal size, which is 960x480. As always, it is the stupid MediaWiki software that is unable to retrieve the information from a dynamically sized vector image. Sigh. There are two options now: define a fixed nominal size, which means that one needs an image editing program to change the size, or leave it dynamically such that the image is dynamically scaled to the size of the window, allowing users to zoom into the image as desired by changing the window size. Btw, should the main line maybe colored in blue to give it a bit more prominence? [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 17:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
::Regarding the sizing: It is fine to just leave it alone and make users select the 1000 pix option. Another choice would simply be to enlarge the font sizes for the two axes strings ("year" and "... decimal digits") and the title string ("Record .."). those are the key strings that readers need to see at the 512 size. Regarding color: Yes, a blue line would probably jump out more: make it more understandable at a glance. --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 17:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
That's weird: some user named Fred the Oyster just updated the SVG image with one that fixes this size problem. So, it looks like they took care of it for you. --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 17:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
:No. He defined a fixed size, which I was trying to avoid. Also, he messed up the fonts. So far he hasn't responded to my talk page inquiry. In the mean time I have uploaded a new version with a blue graph and a slightly increased font size (and changed to font 'Verdana' as per preference of Fred the Oyster). It seems that MediaWiki always opts for a 512px width, when no fixed size is available. Take another look, and let me know whether you want the size to be fixed. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 18:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

:It's readable, as long as you don't have bad eyes. :) [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 18:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
::That's fine. Users can always click on the "1000 pix" button to see an enlarged version. Thank! --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 19:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
:::Regarding fonts: The web site [http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/WindowsMacFonts.html http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/WindowsMacFonts.html] has a good list of web-safe fonts; Verdana is one of them. --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 19:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
::::I know about that. But Fred was complaining about Helvetica, which I had selected before. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 19:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Nageh: Could you post the raw data you used into the graph's Talk page? That way it would be there for future editors to modify and extend. In other words: imagine 10 years from now, a new record is set. An edtior could fetch the SVG vector diagram, and edit it in a graphics program and extend the graph to the right. OR, the editor could take the raw data and input it into gnuplot or some spreadsheet or something and have it create the graph, automatically. The latter seems better, since future editors could change the axis spacing, etc. Does that make sense? --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 15:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
:That's exactly what I had intended. But I'll rather wait for the design to be definitely finalized before I will upload the data. What do you think of the new font sizes? [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 17:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
::New font sizes are perfect. When seeing the thumbnail in the pi article here: [[Pi#Motivations_for_computing_.CF.80]] the fonts are legible even in the pi article thumbnail. --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 17:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
:::Ok, good to hear that. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 17:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

==Reliability==
Hi, would you like to join [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia reliability]]? Membership is free. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 18:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

:I'm not sure how exactly this project intends to work towards its selected goals, but I'll put the page on my watchlist for now. What concerns the list of self-published works, I will certainly see to add to this list; such sources are indeed a problem on Wikipedia. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 19:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

== [[pi]] nominated for FA ==

FYI, the [[pi]] article is nominated for FA status at [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pi/archive1]]. Any comments would be appreciated. --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 03:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

== Observations from a passerby ==

Hi there. While commenting on [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bulgaria/archive3|Bulgaria's FAC]], I happened to read through your discussion with Tourbillon and CMD. Everyone makes mistakes when evaluating an article—I certainly have, egregiously and copiously. That you were quick to admit those errors is commendable. In regards to the non-erroneous points, I think you could have made your arguments more compelling if you had refrained from describing the aforementioned editors as being "ignorant", commenting on their attitudes, accusing them of bashing you, or providing meta-argumentation about your own experiences as an FAC reviewer. It may often seem as though these actions will strengthen your points, but I find that they tend to accomplish nothing and simply drag out the process.

You might think that the world is out to get you, that Tourbillon and CMD are idiots, or that I'm a nosy weinerhead who should mind his own business. Maybe these things are true, but I find it helpful to remind myself of the following: it takes two buttcheeks to make an asshole.

P.S. I hope you don't let this experience dissuade you from reviewing FACs. As I'm sure you know, the process is desperately backlogged, and we need all hands on deck, including yours. Peace and love, mate. --'''[[User:Cryptic C62|Cryptic C62]] · [[User talk: Cryptic C62|Talk]]''' 19:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

:Not at all, it was my fault. Response [[User_talk:Cryptic_C62#Re:_Observations_from_a_passerby|here]]. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 19:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

== Dein Revert in [[landline]] ==

Hi Nageh,
bitte den interwiki link für landline auf "Telefonanschluss" belassen. Wie aus der Beschreibung und Übersetzung ersichtlich bezeichnet landline vor allem und in erster Bedeuting(!) einen Festnetzanschluss und nicht das Netz selbst. Habe entsprechnde links auf der Deutschen WP ebenso angepasst! [[Special:Contributions/194.113.59.80|194.113.59.80]] ([[User talk:194.113.59.80|talk]]) 11:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC) i.e. [[:de:User:Andys|Andys]]

:Der Begriff ist nicht eindeutig zu übersetzen, "Telefonanschluss" ist aber wohl tatsächlich die bessere Wahl. Ich hab auch meinen anderen Revert reverted. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 18:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

== Don't do that ==

Your revert, and general attitude, while I was in the middle of editing and cleaning up other peoples mess was really rather disappointing, and falls short of how people are expected to behave here.[[User:GliderMaven|GliderMaven]] ([[User talk:GliderMaven|talk]]) 11:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

:People are expected to work towards improving the quality of the Wikipedia, and not endorsing other people's verbatim across-articles copying and vandalism. I expect you to watch out next time whether an edit you improve upon really adds to that quality. Otherwise, you are creating even more workload for those people who do watch out. I hope you understand. Thanks, regards, [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 11:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

:Also, take a look [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Email_Types|here]]: the user's new article was '''rejected''', yet he changed all the icons so it looked liked his article was endorsed. Watch out for these issues next time. You will learn that vandalism, both obvious and subversive, is frequent on Wikipedia. Best of luck, [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 11:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

::No, that user does not seem to have engaged in vandalism at [[email]]. His edits appear to have been a good-faith attempt at improving the article.[[User:GliderMaven|GliderMaven]] ([[User talk:GliderMaven|talk]]) 12:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

:::His article was declined, and yet he added his text that he copied all verbatim from the Wikipedia articles [[Webmail]], [[POP3]], [[IMAP]] and [[MAPI]]. There is nothing to discuss about that. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 12:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

::::On the contrary, it was the reviewer actually suggested that he do that, and it's not an unreasonable suggestion, the protocols aren't particularly well covered at email, although they are mentioned.

::::Look just cut other users, particularly new users, a bit of slack, OK?[[User:GliderMaven|GliderMaven]] ([[User talk:GliderMaven|talk]]) 12:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::Obviously, the reviewer didn't notice that all material was taken verbatim from other articles. Leaving aside that no [[WP:A|attribution]] was given as would be required in such cases, excessive [[WP:CFORK|content duplication]] is generally frowned upon. One section summarizing common e-mail protocols and interfaces certainly would be fine, and add to the [[WP:Summary style|comprehensiveness]] of an article. These are the issues I expect you to note.
:::::What concerns cutting slack to new users, I am generally quite considerate of that. As I said, I didn't notice that the reviewer had suggested amending the [[email]] article, so may reaction may have been a bit harsh but still I would expect that someone who comes along doing stylistic cleanup, thus effectively endorsing the prior edit, would keep his eyes more open on said issues. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 12:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

::::::It's perfectly proper to take material verbatim from other articles, the license permits that. As a new user he can't be expected to know the attribution requirements. CFORK is when you copy an entire article, not parts of an article into an overview article, that's explicitly permitted. He didn't do anything wrong that any new user wouldn't be expected to get wrong.[[User:GliderMaven|GliderMaven]] ([[User talk:GliderMaven|talk]]) 12:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::::What are you still arguing??? His edit was not acceptable, and it was reverted, new user or not. And CFORK is not just about duplicating complete articles. Nowhere did I say that "content duplication was not permitted by the license". Stop it! [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 13:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

== Vejlefjord: update ==

Thanks again for all your past help. I shortened “Theodicy and the Bible” and followed your advice and contacted some members of the Christianity project, two of whom deemed the article ready to be published (“go live”). So I have published it. If you have time, please, check it out, remove the new article template if there is one, and rate it if you like. [[User:Vejlefjord|Vejlefjord]] ([[User talk:Vejlefjord|talk]]) 22:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

== Disillusioned? ==

I see from your mathJax page you're currently rather disillusioned with Wikipedia. I certainly feel that way sometimes, I think trying to communicate with people who have not a hint of self doubt is about the worst. I don't know what's happened about you and the WMF but I would only wish that more people could be anywhere near as helpful and constructive as I've found you. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 20:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

:Thank you for your kind words. I will probably ping Susan from the WMF some day and try to communicate the issues I find troubling and disillusioning in the hope to create a net atmosphere that is more constructive and mutually respective. For the moment, I rather keep away from contributing. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 21:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

*{{xt|I think trying to communicate with people who have not a hint of self doubt is about the worst.}} -- Yes, this reflects my experience exactly. It's never just about a lack of clue, because that can be amended. Imho it isn't even about potential bad faith, since that can be rather easily identified (even if it may be difficult to tie down in an RfAr-compatible way). But lack of reasonable self-doubt, that's the one element that permeates all problematic groups of users, from flotsam washed up shore by the tide of Eternal September to highly established POV warriors to the usual reform-filibustering nay-sayers and the power cliques at Meta. Yep, this pretty much nails it. --[[Special:Contributions/213.196.219.2|213.196.219.2]] ([[User talk:213.196.219.2|talk]]) 11:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC) (Just a passer-by here.)

== Wikia Community Forum software ==

I just proposed converting the Village Pumps to Wikia Community Forum software. See:
*[[Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Convert Village Pump to Wikia Community Forum software]]. --[[User:Timeshifter|'''Timeshifter''']] ([[User talk:Timeshifter|talk]]) 18:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

== Broadcast encryption ==

Hi,
You seem to know a bit about [[broadcast encryption]]; that article has sat dormant for quite some time before the recent updates by you and [[User:MarioS|MarioS]]. Do you have sources for the content on that article? It could really use an overhaul by someone with experience with the subject matter.
Thanks!
—[[User:Danhash|danhash]] <small>([[User talk:Danhash|talk]])</small> 18:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

:I know a bit about it but not too much. Gave it an overhaul nonetheless. Cheers, [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 16:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

== Sigh ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=November_2&diff=prev&oldid=517158082 Speaks for itself]. I guess I'll leave it unless the AFD gets closed as delete <sup>hopefully it does</sup>. Even then, I don't know it he's notable enough to be on a births list...I don't know of the requirements and I can't be bothered finding them. [[User:Thompson.matthew|<span style="color:green">Matthew </span><span style="color:Red">Thompson</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Thompson.matthew|talk to me bro!]]</sup> 08:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

== JSTOR ==

Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free [[JSTOR]] account via [[Wikipedia:Requests for JSTOR access|the requests page]]. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.

JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please [[Special:EmailUser/Steven (WMF)|email me]] (swalling{{@}}wikimedia.org) with...

* the subject line "JSTOR"
* your English Wikipedia username
* your preferred email address for a JSTOR account

The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. ''Please do so by November 30th'' or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.

Thank you! <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 21:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

== Disagree over equivalency between composite root square root algorithm and integer factorization being shown ==

I Disagree over equivalency between composite root square root algorithm and integer factorization being shown in the modular square root article.

I know a bit of cryptography too, and there is just a claim in the article that there is equivalency. It is not shown, as my contribution in the article showed, that an equivalent square (that contained <math>r^{2}</math> as a factor (in the first square which is greater than the modulus <math>m</math>) will solve the square root problem, just as it would also factor the modulus.

This shows equivalency. You're being too censurous reviewing the contribution. This contribution would absolutely have gotten into the wikipedia, without any legal problems, not too long ago. You're actually holding back a better understanding of the equivalency claim with your undoing.

[[User:Endo999|Endo999]] ([[User talk:Endo999|talk]]) 15:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

== Damm algorithm ==

You PRODded this article on the grounds of [[WP:OR]] and I have contested it. OR is defined as "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" and that does not seem to be the case here. There are other issues such as notability and COI which might arise, but I don't see OR as one of them. [[User:Deltahedron|Deltahedron]] ([[User talk:Deltahedron|talk]]) 07:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
By the way, your reverting the addition of links to this to a number of other pages, with edit summary ''article proposed for deletion (WP:OR)'' might be considered premature. The article has not yet been deleted and it is quite possible that it will not be: it is not clear that it is OR. Each link should be considered on its merits, and there might indeed be grounds for taking some or may each of them out. But there is no urgency. [[User:Deltahedron|Deltahedron]] ([[User talk:Deltahedron|talk]]) 08:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

:This article contains <s>two</s>one primary source<s>s</s> by the author of the article. Tell me how that is not OR. ''Edit:'' The second source seems indeed peer-reviewed, I was somehow misled before. Anyway, I brought it up for AfD, let the crowd decide. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 18:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

::It is not OR because OR is, as I quoted before, material for which no reliable published sources exist, and this is clearly not the case here. AFD discussion seems the right process here. By the way, you need to be very cautious in your assertion that the source is "by the author of the article" -- there seems to be no evidence for this, and speculating about the real-life identity of an editor could be seens as [[WP:OUTING]], which is quite serious and policy on this overrides [[WP:COI]]. [[User:Deltahedron|Deltahedron]] ([[User talk:Deltahedron|talk]]) 18:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

:::You are wholly right. I shall be more careful next time. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 19:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
:::In retrospective, this might have been my worst call in a while. Anyway, thanks for watching out. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 19:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

==Working out the details at [[Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement]]==
The [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Editor_recruitment_with_TAFI|RFC for TAFI]] is nearing it's conclusion, and it's time to hammer out the details over at the [[Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_article_for_improvement|project's talk page]]. There are several details of the project that would do well with wider input and participation, such as the article nomination and selection process, the amount and type of articles displayed, the implementation on the main page and other things. I would like to invite you to comment there if you continue to be interested in TAFI's development. --[[User:NickPenguin|<font color="darkgreen">Nick</font>]][[User talk:NickPenguin|<font color="darkblue">Penguin</font>]]<sub>([[Special:Contributions/NickPenguin|<font color="blue">'''contribs'''</font>]])</sub> 02:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

==An invitation for you!==

{| style="background:#FFFFFF; border:3px solid #000080; padding: 10px; width: 100%"
|-
|rowspan=2| [[File:Featured article collaboration.svg|90px]]
|-
|{{color|#000080|Hello, Nageh}}. You're invited to join '''{{LinkColor|blue|Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement| WikiProject Today's article for improvement}}'''. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of [[Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement#Members|members]].&nbsp;Happy editing! <small><font face="arial">[[User:Northamerica1000|Northamerica1000]]<sup>[[User_talk:Northamerica1000|(talk)]]</sup></font></small> 00:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
|}

== German language question ==

I'm looking at [[:File:Glow-discharge-schematic-de.png]], and it just strikes me as wrong with both -sche and -scher Dunkelraum variations. My understanding is
*der Dunkelraum
*der astonsche Dunkelraum / astonscher Dunkelraum
*der hittorfsche Dunkelraum / hittorfscher Dunkelraum
*der faradaysche Dunkelraum / faradayscher Dunkelraum

That is, the figure should use "Astonscher Dunkelraum" instead of "Astonsche Dunkelraum". Am I missing something? [[User:Glrx|Glrx]] ([[User talk:Glrx|talk]]) 07:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

:You are right (I corrected two typos above). Both "Astonsche Dunkelraum" and "Hittdorfsche Dunkelraum" need to be fixed, and there is a spurious 'd' in "Hittdorfsche Dunkelraum" that needs to be removed. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 10:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

:: Thanks. Thanks for correcting my typos, too. By the way, your editing is greatly appreciated. [[User:Glrx|Glrx]] ([[User talk:Glrx|talk]]) 16:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

== ANI ==

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Nageh.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29 [[User:Werieth|Werieth]] ([[User talk:Werieth|talk]]) 20:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
:You are welcome. I asked you to use plain words when you'd think I was wrong, that is not too much being asked for. If you think taking it to ANI is a proper way to discuss matters, have it your way, I'm not following it. Cheers. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 21:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
::He did use plain words. I'll make them plainer. Go take a look at [[:File:Union Bank of Switzerland 1960 logo.png]]. Look at the licensing. Notice that it is licensed for use in the article [[Union Bank of Switzerland]] and ''only'' [[Union Bank of Switzerland]]. If you want to use it in [[UBS]], it is ''your responsibility'' to write a ''separate'' licensing description for its use in [[UBS]]. It's not Werieth's responsbility to do so, it's yours.
::Don't reject valid warnings like this: your failure to comply with policy was obvious, the warnings were clear to any editor that took the time to read them.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 21:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
:::Thank you for your helpful words, Kww. Werieth did not use plain words when posting on my talk page. Instead he accused me of uploading non-free images, while modifying other parts of my talk page. I did not know that a separate mention for each use of an image in articles is needed; I reverted Werieth a single time, I only objected to his accusation on my talk page. Also, ''I'' do not want to use the image in the [[UBS]] article, I only reverted what seemed to me like an erroneous image removal. That aside, I have all right to remove and clear any text on my user pages, especially when they are wrong accusations. Sigh, whatever. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 21:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
::::Since you did not read my first message let me highlight the relevant text ''or added to an article may fail our [[WP:NONFREE|non-free image policy]]''. I after you reverted my warning as "Vandalism" something that it is not, I asked you politely to review [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]] which is what defines and instructs users on how to deal with it. My edits where not a ''deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia''. I also asked you to review our [[WP:NFC|policy on non-free content]] which explains that all uses of a non-free file require separate rationales for each use (see [[WP:NFC#10c]]) you then reverted that edit as vandalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=549743131&oldid=549743062]. Since I no longer was able to discuss it on your talk page without getting reverted and called a vandal I took the next logical step, reported it to [[WP:ANI]]. [[User:Werieth|Werieth]] ([[User talk:Werieth|talk]]) 22:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
UTC)
:::::I also did not literally add any non-free images, at least I do not classify a revert as such. I was reverting you on my page because your script-based warning seemed like an assumption of bad faith to me and an unwillingness to discuss matters ''in plain words'' by your side. What followed was probably blindness on my side. Sorry for the misunderstandings, and in any case, I appreciate that last post of yours. Let's settle this issue now. Best, [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh#top|talk]]) 22:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. The above incident shows how misunderstanding and miscommunication can spin out of control. I wish it hadn't escalated. You are both a reasonable and a valuable editor. You are certainly not an intentional copyright violator, and many long-term, knowlegeable, editors misuse "vandalism". You got to learn some points, but you also got your side across. Good luck down the road. [[User:Glrx|Glrx]] ([[User talk:Glrx|talk]]) 15:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

== mathjax fonts ==

Hi Nageh, small question. I was working on merging a few of your changes into MediaWiki again. I noticed <code>styles: { "mtext":</code> in your config and was wondering it this is actually doing anything anymore. The MathJax says that these should be CSS selectors, but mtext isn't a CSS HTML selector (.mtext is). Am I correct in assuming that you are specifically targeting MathML mtext elements ? —[[User:TheDJ|Th<span style="color: green">e</span>DJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]])

== Help with iint and oiint ==

Hi Nageh, could you perhaps lend a hand with this: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/61253/ In all honesty I have no clue what it is doing, no test cases and no way to identify pre and post situations. —[[User:TheDJ|Th<span style="color: green">e</span>DJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 20:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

== DYK-Good Article Request for Comment ==

{{tmbox
|style = notice
|small =
|image = [[Image:Updated DYK query.svg|15px|Updated DYK query]]
|text = Did you know ... that since you expressed an opinion on the GA/DYK proposal last year, we invite you to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the matter? Please see the proposal on its subpage [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Good Article RfC|here]], or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Good_Article_RfC&action=watch this link]. Regards, <span style="">[[User:Gilderien|Gilderien]] <span style="font-size:70%; vertical-align:sub;">[[User talk:Gilderien|Chat]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Gilderien|What I've done]]</span></span>23:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
}}
<!-- EdwardsBot 0584 -->

Revision as of 20:58, 23 August 2013

Retired
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nageh&oldid=569911063"