User talk:EmilJ/Archive 3

Czech Republic – Iceland relations

The article on Czech Republic – Iceland relations is up for deletion, do you have time to see if you can add any new references? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Abuse Filter Log

Can I bring this to your attention please [1]. Apparently you have violated two accounts of "Macedonia name conflict". However you have not actually done anything wrong. I am in the same position as you, see here [2]. We have both done nothing wrong, but this "Macedonia name conflict" has been added to our "Abuse Filter Log". I think this is really unfair. I have complained here [3], please feel free to participate because we have both been accused of something which we didn't do and we haven't even been consulted about this. This is really unfair. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that this is not something to worry about. The filter is triggered by pretty much any changes of Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, or FYROM to each other, it is expected to generate false positives, and that's precisely the reason why the only enabled action of the filter is to log the hits, rather than disallowing the edit or warning the user or some such. — Emil J. 10:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wanted to make sure you knew. Apparently there is something wrong with the filter. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 10:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Albanian embassy in Kosovo

You're quite right - I was getting Afghanistan and Albania mixed up... Bazonka (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

On behalf of retrieving archived discussion on Talk:International recognition of Kosovo

Perhaps my action of retrieving the archived discussionmay be interpreted as conforming to WP:IAR, but your action of archiving the ongoing discussion is interpreted as conforming to WP:IAR, without regard of WP:Consensus. I took the liberty and "disarchived" the discussion because I consider the discussion ongoing and not over. Especially since the words "...and there's no benefit in keeping it here" by the editor who asked for its closure haven't given enough justification for his/hers request. There's no benefit cannot by any mean be verifiable, not to say true, simply because my own opinion does have to matter, and giving my opinion on this subject should be considered as benefit. Of course when you assume WP:AGF|good faith) on my behalf, as I hope and honestly believe you do. All the best, --Biblbroks's talk 12:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There's been no sign of any ongoing discussion for over two weeks, apart from one isolated post. Despite your self-chosen username, you are not the president of the universe, so there is no reason why we should keep your opinion on the talk page indefinitely. You stated your opinion, other people stated theirs, the discussion is over, it gets archived. Stop your disruptive editing behaviour, WP:IAR is for rare exceptional situations, you cannot appeal to it all the time just because all other editors of the page disagree with you. — Emil J. 12:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I don't give Barnstars very often, but your comment regarding the misspelling of Zaphod Beeblebrox made me laugh. Therefore you deserve the Barnstar of Good Humour. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! — Emil J. 09:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

scaling a formula

Dear friend, Thanks for your help at help talk:Displaying a formula. I posted a new question relating to "scaling a formula". Could you please help? Thanks in advance! Best regards
‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 11:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Logic/Standards for notation

Hi, you reverted my edit to Wikipedia:WikiProject Logic/Standards for notation. I reverted it back, because in <math>, \& produces error ($\&$), but \And produces the right output ($\And$). Svick (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right. It did not occur to me that texvc could have such a weird incompatibility with standard TeX. — Emil J. 10:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Balkans

VERY SORRY --Factuarius (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I hope that our little misunderstanding is now resolved. — Emil J. 16:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits

Please don't mark non-minor edits as minor, like this one. See Help:Minor edit:

"When not to mark an edit as minor:

• Adding content to an article
• Removing content from an article"

Thanks for adding the information on JSL to the linked article, to avoid surprising the readers who click through the dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Linearly independent characteristic functions

Hi Emil. After your quick counter-example to my naive hint here I happened to think a bit on it. Here is an obvious but nice construction of a monotone (wrto inclusion) family of subsets of $\textstyle \mathbb {N}$ $\textstyle \{S_{x}\}_{x\in [0,1]},$ such that $S_{x}$ has density $x$.

Consider an equidistributed sequence $\{\alpha _{n}\}_{n\in \mathbb {N} }$ in $[0,1],$ and define

$S_{x}:=\{n\in \mathbb {N} \,:\,\alpha _{n}<x\}.$

Then, by definition, $S_{x}\subset S_{y}$ for all $x<y$ and $d(S_{x})=x$ for all $x$. As a consequence, in any finite collection of $S_{x}$, one of them is not covered by the others (so their characteristic functions are linearly independent &c). --pma (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this sounds right. — Emil J. 11:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

TeX

Capitalization rules of Wikipedia are followed by other pages, such as flOw. Just because a name isn't capitalized and is widely spelled a certain way doesn't exempt it from the standardization. Talk to me, Rbpolsen♦☺♦ 04:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand Wikipedia naming conventions. The most fundamental rule is that articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of a person or thing that is the subject of the article. So, yes, the fact that the name is widely spelled a certain way does in fact make it the title of choice. The MOS:TM guideline you quoted merely elaborates on this convention by stressing that if there is a discrepancy between common English usage and a trademark, the common English name prevails. This rule is actually redundant (it already follows from the first rule), and in any case, it is not applicable to TeX, because here the common English usage agrees with the trademark. — Emil J. 11:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me

You said, Fix your computer instead of breaking it for all other people. In what way does my computer need to be fixed? I've never seen this problem on any other article, and I've edited several thousand. Jehochman ^Talk 13:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, what problem are you talking about? I can't even try to tell you what needs to be fixed before you tell us how is it broken for you. However, since the pronunciation info is a simple string of Unicode characters, most likely it is due to missing or incorrect fonts. — Emil J. 13:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That I can see because many of the characters appear as little squares. My system has all the default US-English Windows fonts. I did not remove any. This is a problem I have not noticed on any other article ever. For instance, the template works fine for me on Johann Gottlieb Fichte. Jehochman ^Talk 13:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The sets of characters used in transcriptions of the two names happen to be almost disjoint, so this does not say much. Did you check what characters you do or don't see at WP:IPA for German? Anyway, I can't help you much with Windows fonts, you should direct your question to WP:VPT or WP:RD/C. — Emil J. 13:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Your indent question

About your question: "is there any particular reason why [I] keep making [my] posts one-element unnumbered lists?" Well, I'd noticed that the sys-ops were starting their posts like this on a certain page. I can't seem to find the page right now. I think it makes it easier to see where my posts begin. If we all adopted it then it would work much better. At the moment we have some messages following each other with the same number of indents and the signature is the only clue as to where one post ends and another starts. I hope it's not too offensive to your eyes. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 17:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If we all adopted it: maybe, maybe. The catch is, we didn't. The standard on WP talk pages is to use colons rather than bullets, and then if there is a lone post starting with a bullet in the middle of a thread, it has rather the opposite effect from what you intend: it makes it harder to figure out where the post fits in, as it is misaligned with the rest, as well as simply looking unusual. Bulleted (or sometimes even numbered) lists are generally used only in polls (like WP:AfD) and similar situations, where it helps to quickly numerically gauge the current consensus. — Emil J. 18:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you feel so strongly about it then I'll have to reconsider. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 18:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

By all means use whatever formatting you want, I was just wondering. — Emil J. 18:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

IPA keyboard input

EmilJ, I appreciate the fact that Wikipedia articles should not normally refer to themselves. However, I think an exception can be made for a brief mention in an appendix to an article. This is not harmful and could be helpful. I refer you to Wikipedia:Help desk#More on IPA tone for an example of the kind of frustration that can be caused by having no reference whatsoever. Please reconsider these deletions in the International Phonetic Alphabet article. --seberle (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason why any editing tools should be mentioned in an encyclopedia article on IPA. It is harmful, just like adding any other non-encyclopedic material. Such things belong elsewhere, such as WP:IPA or (some of the subpages of) WP:EDIT. — Emil J. 15:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I have added a link to the appropriate manual. Such things may belong elsewhere, but there needs to be a way to get elsewhere, and currently the path there is not clear. I know. I spent hours looking for this resource. --seberle (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Seberle, there is no point having a self-reference within the article; the article is written for people who read Wikipedia, not people who write it. Any information on keyboard input should be in the dablink at the top of the article, if anywhere.

The Helpdesk link you've given contains nothing (as far as I can tell) showing a consensus to include this self-reference. Therefore, I am removing it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your points, but something still needs to be done. Perhaps you have a suggestion? There are two problems with the link at the top of the article, and someone needs to address them. First of all, the link to Help:IPA just says it is for "pronunciation guides", so anyone trying to figure out how to type IPA code would not follow that link. Secondly, even if you do follow that link, there is really no information in there on how to enter IPA codes. My recommendation would be that the Help:IPA article be updated (as others suggested at Wikipedia:Help desk#More on IPA tone) and then that the link say something like "pronunciation guides and editing tips" or whatever. But perhaps you have a better idea? I am definitely open! This really should not be as difficult as it now is. I'm not sure what you mean by "nothing showing a consensus". The link is, in fact, a collection of rather generic means of entering IPA code, most of which are applicable not only to Wikipedia, but anywhere. It is more helpful than the other Keyboard Input links in the IPA article. Oh, well. If including a small link is not acceptable, please come up with other suggestions on how to help people figure out how to enter IPA code. Thanks for any ideas you can come up with. --seberle (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The external links section already has a bunch of links to keyboard input methods. It's not our job to point out which specific methods are good for Wikipedia use (as opposed to other use). There are already more than enough input methods and copy-paste methods in that section for any user to get by. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the External Links in Help:IPA? There were only two links, neither of which gave any help for inputting IPA to a Wikipedia article. I just added the third link, which does help. This is supposed to be a help article for Wikipedia editors, so of course it is "our job to point out which specific methods are good for Wikipedia use". If you mean the External Links of the International Phonetic Alphabet article, there are 12 and only one is helpful for Wikipedia editing (unless you have a Mac). In this case, having "more than enough" is actually less helpful. I was simply trying to leave a hint to future editors which link was the one they needed. But I accept that this is against Wikipedia policy. That's cool. But what we need now is more explicit help in the Help:IPA article, and I do not have the expertise to do this. I might resort to simply copying the helpful section in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation)#Entering IPA characters. I can at least do that. --seberle (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Be bold

but then discuss; see WP:BRD. Your changes to sinc function and what you're saying about them don't make sense to me, but maybe if you explain better I'll get it, or some other editor will support it and explain why. But I doubt it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sieve of Atkin

I found your comment on Sieve of Atkin to be maybe wrong [4] as the paper cited (http://cr.yp.to/papers/primesieves.pdf) specifically states that "One can save a factor of log(log(N)) in the running time of the sieve of Eratosthenes by letting W grow with N". I was unable to reach the O(N^1/2(log log N)/log N) bound on memory so I left that untouched. No hard feelings, and if I'm wrong, leave me a message on the Sieve of Atkin's talkpage because I can't be reached through this dynamic IP. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.226.28 (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The basic form of the sieve of Eratosthenes takes time O(N log log N). Letting W grow with N indeed saves a factor of log log N, resulting in O(N) time. — Emil J. 09:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you're correct. 75.4.226.28 (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)