User talk:Kri

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. For other uses of Kri, see Kri.

---

Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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

We all have to start somewhere. Deb (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your AIV report on 82.69.243.62

Thank you for your report on 82.69.243.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and you are encouraged to revert, warn and report inappropriate conduct. I have however declined to act on this report for the following reason:

Appears to be a shared IP address, used by multiple users. Used by a school, this is most probably not the same person.

The Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism might be a helpful read if you wish to improve your future reports. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Cheers! -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

logistic distribution, Elo rating system

I saw your fact tag at Elo rating system, but I do not see any discussion of the item you questioned at the talk page of logistic distribution. Bubba73 (talk), 14:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Elo rating system#Logistical distribution --Kri (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Now it's archived: Talk:Elo rating system/Archive 1#Logistical distribution —Kri (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of internet forums

The article List of internet forums has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Simply too many forums on the Internet. There would be no way to determine which one's should be listed and which one's shouldn't. Also, it would be impossible to list every forum out there.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Netalarmtalk 17:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kri. You have new messages at Netalarm's talk page.
Message added 20:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Netalarmtalk 20:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kri. You have new messages at Netalarm's talk page.
Message added 06:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Netalarmtalk 06:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Internet forums

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Internet forums. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Internet forums. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

convergence in probability

In this edit, the overlines should not be there, because the concept being defined is what it means for the sequence {X_n} to converge in probability to X. I suspect that you're confused by the fact that there are theorems whose asserting convergence in probability of sample means

${\overline {X}}_{n}=(X_{1}+\cdots +X_{n}).\,$

If it is asserted that the sequence of sample means converges in probability to some random variable X, then one should say that

${\overline {X}}_{n}{\text{ converges in probability to }}X\,$

is equivalent to

$\lim _{n\to \infty }\operatorname {Pr} {\big (}|{\overline {X}}_{n}-X|\geq \varepsilon {\big )}=0.\,$

But that is not what it means to say the sequence

$\{X_{n}\}\,$

converges to X, rather it is what it means to say that the sequence of sample means

$\{{\overline {X}}_{n}\}\,$

converges to X. And that appears in theorems, not in the basic definition of convergence in probability. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thank you for clearing that up for me; I thought X_n was the n:th random variable rather than the average of the n first random variables. I guess that is what happens when you don't read the whole article. :)

X_n was the nth random variable in the sequence of random variables whose convergence to X was being defined. In some applications, this may be a sequence of averages; in others it might not be. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Phong shading

Is this method sourced, or something you came up with? It's a half-step toward what I published in '93. Dicklyon (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It was something I came up with. Is it okay if it is there, or does it have to be sourced? --Kri (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It should be sourced. You can use my paper as a source if you want (see ref on specular reflection); extend it to be like what I did if you like (replacing 1-dotprod by squared distance). Or delete it if you don't want to bother.

I'm sorry, are you talking about what I wrote about the reflection vector or are you talking about the approximation method for the power of the dot product that I wrote about? The latter is where the diff you linked to goes to. --Kri (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see now what paper you meant. Feel free to add a reference to it; your paper seems to have a lot of other good techniques in it too. Or maybe the paragraphs could be removed in the article, but a note could be left somewhere in the section saying that there are a lot of approximation methods that can be used when implementing Phong shading, as well as a reference to your paper. --Kri (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A section on approximation techniques would be useful. I've hesitated to write it and support it by my own paper, though. Someone else should do it. Feel free to give it a shot if you like. Dicklyon (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I could look into it. By the way, are the methods in your paper patented? --Kri (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the patent, which I linked on Talk:Specular highlight, you'll see that the claims are all specific to the method of using the difference vector; so what you said in Phong shading about the approximation method you added was incorrect; but as long as you're talking about approximations and referencing my paper, might as well include a bit about what makes it good. In general, though, it is never a good idea to try to talk about patent status in wikipedia, since it takes a lawyer and some study to even form an opinion of whether a patent might be infringed by practicing some idea, and whether the patent is valid, and even whether the patent is still in force. And people generally don't want to know, since it's safer to not know, in terms of triple damages for willful infringement. Most IP attorneys advise their clients to not worry about existing patents; don't ask, don't know. Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't really sure what the patent covered; I simply assumed it was for every method in the paper. My apologies and thank you for fixing it. And about patents: I shall keep what you said in mind! --Kri (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Best friends forever

The article Best friends forever has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence for existence or encyclopedic value of this term.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD (talk) 06:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay. —Kri (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Hydrogen eigenstate n5 l2 m1.png

A tag has been placed on File:Hydrogen eigenstate n5 l2 m1.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Marcus Qwertyus 00:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake to put a category tag on the page here on Wikipedia instead of on its description page on Commons. —Kri (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Kri, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Kri/Quicklinks.

• See a log of files removed today here.
• Shut off the bot here.
• Report errors here.
• If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Merge from List of game engine articles discussion

Hello, Kri. You have new messages at Talk:List of game engines.
Message added 05:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rotational symmetry in edge detectors

Hi Kri, I saw your question at Talk:Sobel operator#What does "rotational_symmetry" mean? and I wanted to let you know I provided an answer. No guarantee that every expert in the world would formulate the answer the same way I did, but that's how I understand it. Hope that helps! — Control.valve (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Need source for pi

Hi. Can you supply a source for the slow convergence rate 1/√n that you put into the pi article? I found two sources that say the MC methods converge slowly, but neither has that specific rate formula. I added those sources, but we also need a source that contains that formula. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It is simply the standard deviation of the estimation of pi. When you add a number of independently distributed variables together, the variance of the sum will simply be the sum of the variances of the induvidual variables (~ n). Then the standard deviation is defined as the square root of the variance (~ √n). Finally, our estimation is the average of the terms, hence the sum divided by the number of terms (~ √n / n = 1 / √n). I don't have any better source than that for it. —Kri (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but WP:V policy requires an external source .. editors are not permitted to do their own calculations ... see WP:OR. Do you have some math book that contains that formula .. we just need a book name & page number. Informal web sites are not okay; but MathWorld may be acceptable. --Noleander (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If it really needs an external source, be my guest and go ahead and delete the statement, since I still don't have any reference. Maybe we can just mention that Monte Carlo methods converge very slowly, and omit the formula. —Kri (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay .. I already added a source for the "very slowly" part. If you find a source for the 1/sqrt(n) go ahead and re-add it to the article. --Noleander (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Invisible

Template:Invisible has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Bold

Template:Bold has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

anchorencode

Hi Kri, Per your request, see mw:Help:Magic_words#Parser functions. Krinkle (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Mvar

I see that you tagged {{Mvar}} for speedy deletion. I have 2 comments about this:

1. If you need to tag a page with over 100 transclusions for deletion, please put the tag inside <noinclude> tags; additionally, add it to the top, as opposed to replacing the old page content with the tag.
2. I see nothing justifying speedy deletion. If you think it should be delketing, please nominate it at WP:Templates for discussion.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops... So sorry for that, I accidentally tagged the wrong template for deletion. That was only a mistake. —Kri (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

LaTeX

Nice job in dragging LaTeX back to the land of normal typesetting. My eyes say thank you. - X201 (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ehm, just for your records, that wasn't me; that was mostly Dicklyon. But we can say that it was me, so, you're welcome! :) —Kri (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Physics vs. Computational Physics

What I meant by motivations from physics when writing this sentence is that different types of theories are used in physics depending on the scale of modelling; please see the review article

Lindeberg ``Scale-space theory: A basic tool for analysing structures at different scales, J. of Applied Statistics, 21(2), pp. 224--270, 1994.

This motivation holds irrespespective of a restriction to computational physiscs. Tpl (talk) 09:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that article is too long for me to read (I found it here), but I believe you. Should it act as a reference for the statement about physics in the article? —Kri (talk) 10:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

March 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Cat are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. alex3yoyo (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will visit the reference desk next time. Thanks for informing me about it. —Kri (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Fresnel equations

I reverted you at Fresnel equations. Snell's law remains correct for angles above the critical angle, but cos θ_t becomes complex. The derivation of the Fresnel equations works just fine, and the resulting equations predict total internal reflection, giving a reflectivity of 1 for angles above the critical angle. This is important. Math is powerful.--Srleffler (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Math is powerful?

Okay, thanks for telling me that about Snell's law, I actually didn't know. —Kri (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Random "Talk: you have new messages" messages?

After someone left me a real talk page message, I stopped getting the fake thing. Perhaps this message will resolve the problem for you as it did for me. Might help if you'd report at VPT what happens after you get this message, especially if the fakes continue. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

What is VPT? And yes, I'm still getting the "Talk: You have new messages" notification. —Kri (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish reported the same thing :-( Please report at WP:VPT; sorry I wasn't clear before. Nyttend (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Kri. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Derive numbering templates from {{ref}} and {{note}}?

Have you learned anything since June 2012 about the possibilities for using equation numbers, figure numbers, etc., with Wikimedia software? I added some comments to yours in "Template talk:Ref#Derive numbering templates from {{ref}} and {{note}}?" Thanks for raising the issue. DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, maybe someone else knows how to do it. The thing that is needed in order to automatically number items are counters. I know that there are at least two counters for each Wikipedia page — one that is used to number links and {{ref}} and {{note}} instances that haven't been labeled (e.g., [http://example.com] and {{ref|a}} and {{note|a}} give [1] and ^[2] and ^ , respectivelly), and one that is used to number references (e.g., <ref>Test reference</ref> gives ).

If these are the only counters that exist for each Wiki page, a generic counter type needs to be added to the Wikimedia software. Maybe they know at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). If that is the case, the best bet would probably be to propose to introduce generic counters in the Wikimedia software either at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) or at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

—Kri (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

As an example of a really bad (but not so unlikely) scenario that can happen if an article contains many equations that are not automatically numbered, there is this article which I just encountered. —Kri (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Best friends forever for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Best friends forever is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best friends forever until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tlxi

Template:Tlxi has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

Nomination of List of Internet forums for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Internet forums is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Internet forums (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Alternative cancer treatments

Please do not use the talk page for raising the topic of conflicts of interest, as it is disruptive. Any COI concerns should be taken to WP:COIN. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Oren–Nayar reflectance model

My apologies. A scientific paper, due to size constraints, cannot provide all possible low-level details. The first image on wiki looks same as on page 1 in paper. The fact that authors did not specify some details about images, is not enough to call the images misleading. I'd suggest to undo your "misleading" tag. Thanks.

I left an answer on the article's talk page. —Kri (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

AsciiDoc

Dear Kri,

What should we say in the AsciiDoc article about the file extension? I am surprised that Talk:AsciiDoc#File extension? lists so many different extensions for AsciiDoc files. --DavidCary (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop the slow edit war at Template:Definition, or you will be reported. WP:BRD is very clear over how you should act if your changes are reverted, and this is a perfect example of why that guideline exists. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I tried discussing the edit, but didn't get any answer in well over 24 hours. If I have to wait for an answer before I can make a change, and I don't receive an answer, the whole development process is stalled, which in my opinion is not a good thing. I therefore think that you should be allowed to redo the change if you have tried discussing it but don't receive an answer. So for that reason I would argue that this is a poor example of why WP:BRD exists. What makes you think this is a good example? —Kri (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You failed to take into account two things. 1. That 24 hours is not much time for a template. 2. That if you were reverted, that proves you have no consensus for the edit, so there is no justification for repeating it, even if you would not have received a reply ever.

In any case, you now have an answer on that template talkpage. I also think that when changing a 7 year consensus, you should have a better argument than "nobody replied to my question". Debresser (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your answer. I will read the answer on the template's talk page. —Kri (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kri. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Clarification needed on the Classification of discontinuities page

Hello, you recently added a {{clarify}} tag on the mathematical article about classification of discontinuities. I would like to provide the clarification needed but I'm unable to spot exactly what you find unclear. Are you wondering whether $\lim _{x\to 1^{+}}f(x)$, that is $\lim _{x\to 1^{+}}{\frac {1}{x-1}}$, is considered infinite or does not exist ? Pyrrhonist05 (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering whether $L^{+},$ or $\lim _{x\to 1^{+}}{\frac {1}{x-1}},$ is considered to exist, since infinities are not always considered to exist, at least not as real or complex numbers. But I see now that the article says "only one of the two one-sided limits needs not to exist or is infinite," so I guess it is considered to exist but as an infinity, and hence give rise to an essential discontinuity, just like $L^{-}$? —Kri (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The author of the example did not make any comment whatsoever on whether the limit $L^{+}$ is infinite or does not exist. Indeed, I think she/he did it intentionally because it don't make any difference since it is defined that there is an essential discontinuity at a point where at least one of the two one-sided limits does not exist or is infinite. Therefore, if we consider $L^{+}$ to exist but be infinite, there is an essential discontinuity. On the other hand if we consider the limit to not exist, there still an essential discontinuity, so there is no difference. Anyway, we could make it clear in the article by adding a little comment on this matter. Pyrrhonist05 (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Open-ended game has been nominated for discussion

Category:Open-ended game, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Stone damage

The article Stone damage has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Dictionary definition.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. EEng 20:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Kri. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

TfD

Hi, the template {{about2}}, which you've created, has been nominated for deletion at TfD. The nominator appparently forgot to notify you. – Uanfala (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Not an antonym but an antinomy!

You may wish to know that I just corrected a typo/malapropism of in the Grelling-Nelson paradox. PJTraill (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC).

Oops, yes that was definitely a malapropism. Thanks for letting me know! —Kri (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kri. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Lists of types of robots moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Lists of types of robots, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I see, but just claiming that an article needs more sources and citations in general is not especially helpful, as I'm not sure exactly what those would be or why they would be needed in a list article like this which, in my opinion, doesn't really constitute its own topic. Is there any claim or part of the article in particular that you think is controversial and needs a reference? —Kri (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

National varieties of English

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Delirious?, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. For "international" usage see U2 and the Beatles. For American usage see Metallica and Talking Heads. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Gy

Template:Gy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. TarkusAB^talk 12:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Polhem's mechanical alphabet

Hello, Kri,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Hughesdarren and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged an article that you started, Polhem's mechanical alphabet, for deletion, because it's impossible to identify the subject of the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It is not an article; it is supposed to be a redirection page. I see that the link had become broken, so I fixed it. —Kri (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of types of robots

Hello, Kri. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of types of robots".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Behavior modelling has been nominated for discussion

Category:Behavior modelling, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Behavior selection algorithms has been nominated for discussion

Category:Behavior selection algorithms, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Behavior models has been nominated for discussion

Category:Behavior models, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

success and warning classes

One or more or your scripts uses the warning or success classes. Be aware that the styling for these classes may be removed in the near future. See WP:VPT#Tech News: 2021-18 for a list of scripts. Izno (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	here is some fake wikipedia stuff. stop wasting your time Keiko69 (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)