User talk:Anita5192

This is my talk page that I created on Nov 08 2011 in order to communicate with other editors, etc.
Hablo español.
Ich spreche Deutsch.
I speak English.
— Anita Rivas

Square number

Hi Anita5192, As I said in my edit summary, I removed it because I felt it was redundant. (In particular, it's already mentioned on the page that the highest power of a prime dividing a square must be even.) If you'd really like the words "canonical representation" to appear, my suggestion is to work them in to the existing paragraph in which parity of prime powers is discussed. All the best, --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I've merged what you wrote into the paragraph I was referring to -- please feel free to edit to suit your tastes. Joel B. Lewis (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Anita5192. You have new messages at Mandarax's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LadyofShalott 23:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hello Anita--I'm not going to pile on; I'm just going to say that without Mandarax this place would have fallen down in ruins a long time ago. And without the Lady, well, we'd all be little robots making little mechanical edits. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Stiff equation

You mentioned on my talk page that you did some work on our article on stiff equations. I never replied to this until now. I had a good look at the article and I see that you did much to improve it. So many thanks for your work. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy

Hello, Anita5192! The instructors at the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy have seen your hard work reverting Vandalism when you see it, and we thank you. But do you want to go to the next level? Would you like to know how reverts, warnings, reports, blocks, and bans all come together to keep the Encyclopedia free from disruption? Then consider Enrolling today! Achowat (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

.

Math template

Hi Anita! I saw that you removed usage of the math template in the article stiff equation since you said it doesn't display well on all terminals. Which terminal are you using and how does it display on that terminal since it doesn't look good? It's not good if it doesn't look good, since it's meant to be an improvement over "normal" HTML math. (I guess by terminal you mean web browser?) —Kri (talk) 05:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In Internet Explorer on laptops and workstations, several of the fonts used for math symbols show up with very thin strokes and in a different style. I try to make in-line math look as much as possible like the text in which it is embedded – much as a math textbook – by using mostly standard text and italics. I only use other fonts for math when absolutely necessary (e.g., when the symbols do not exist in standard text) and then usually on a separate line. I often go to another terminal to see if something looks different on another system. I often compare what I am editing with other articles to see if other editors have frequently used a particular type font. I recently spent a lot of time on the stiff equation article cleaning up some of the mixture of type fonts. — Anita5192 (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that is not good. Maybe you should make a notification about that on the talk page of {{math}}, since there are a lot of articles that use it. —Kri (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That is an excellent idea. Per your suggestion, I just copied my comment above, almost verbatim, to the {{math}} talk page. — Anita5192 (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

About Hom(X)

Hi, responded on my talkpage, which you are hopefully watching. Rschwieb (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Academy

Hey there Anita! I'm Achowat and I'm one of the Instructors over at the CVU Academy and I'd be willing, if you want, to work with you. I'll watchlist here, so just let me know. Achowat (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Achowat. I am interested in rollback because twice now, in the course of reverting vandalism, I have reverted several consecutive edits by a single editor. I would like to be able to revert such edits in a single edit, partly so that it will appear in the history as a single event, which will be neater to read, and also so that it will be quicker and easier to do. Is there anything that I need to learn or practice before using rollback? — Anita5192 (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the important thing to know about Rollback is that it can only be used in case of obvious vandalism (and a few more, as found at WP:ROLLBACK). WP:Vandalism is a good place to start to find out exactly what the Wikipedia community does (and, perhaps more importantly, does not) consider vandalism. Give that a read over and let me know if you have any questions. Achowat (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I have read WP:Vandalism several times before, but I just re-read it and I believe I understand the principles of identifying and responding properly to vandalism and misguided good-faith edits. I do not fully understand the links on the line

• See the what links here pages for Insert text, Link title, Headline text, Bold text and Example Image to detect test edits. (see also {{toolbar experiments}})

except for the what links here page. — Anita5192 (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

So, on the edit page, there are these buttons that can be pressed (A bold capital B, and italicized capital I, etc), and often people who are making test edits just click those buttons and hit "save". They very, very rarely are used in an Encyclopedic way, and should be removed. (But remember, if Rollback is in your future, that Rollback cannot be used on test edits). I hope that answered your question. Achowat (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that explains it. Thank you. Can rollback be used for successive, sloppy, good-faith edits? Recently (Aug 13 2012) an editor made several edits and subsequently reverted them, but left a blank line in the Arithmetic function article. To make sure I did not miss anything else in these edits, I decided that the safest way to make sure the article was returned to its proper state was to revert all the edits by that editor, although I assumed good-faith, because there was no obvious malicious editing. Would it have been considered appropriate, in this case, to rollback the entire set of edits and label it as reverting good-faith edits? — Anita5192 (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem with using the Rollback functionality is that, generally speaking, you don't get to leave an edit summary. It's helpful when dealing with Vandals because you use one click instead of 3, but the downside is a lack of edit summary. That's, primarily, the reason it can only be used for Vandalism, from banned users, and in a few other minor situations. Achowat (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand now. This explains a lot. What do I need to do to be granted the ability to use rollback? — Anita5192 (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the biggest thing is to have a good track record of high-quality vandalism reverts (with the correct accompanying warning from WP:WARN). Remember that Rollback doesn't allow edit summaries, so what I would suggest is, during your next Vandalism patrol, use the edit summary "rvv" (for ReVert Vandalism, a common term) any time you would use Rollback. I can then take a look at your edits and see if there are any issues. Achowat (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey there Anita! I see you've been doing some counter-vandalism, and that's great. This edit, specifically, you knocked out of the park. But these two seemed like good faith edits. Remember, Vandalism is the "willful attempt to harm the encyclopedia", which is a much, much stronger standard than non-constructive editing. You've been doing good work on user talk pages, but just remember that every use of Rollback (which, therefore, implies vandalism) should be followed by a User Talk Warning, or a report to AIV. Achowat (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I am still interested in rollback. I just made an attempt to revert multiple vandalism edits by 96.241.153.36 but it was very cumbersome to do and in the meantime another editor jumped in and cleaned up the entire mess, evidently with one stroke. — Anita5192 (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking over your recent vandalism reverts, it seems as though you have a strong handle on what is and is not vandalism. I don't think there would be a problem if you applied for the Rollback bit at WP:RFPP. If you would like to try Twinkle (which is a whole lot like Rollback), instead, I could help you with that process, as well. Let me know how it goes. Cheers! Achowat (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I will look more closely at both and let you know what I think. — Anita5192 (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Square number

Hi Anita5192,

The user you just reverted at square number is on something of an unpleasant tear at the moment (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Square (algebra)) but at least part of the edit you reverted should be unreverted: some content has moved to the (newly recreated) article square (algebra) where it fits somewhat better.

All the best, --JBL (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You might see here also (looks like Incnis Mrsi is after you... for no reason)... 20:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for the heads up. — Anita5192 (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

A New Study On Combination And Permutation

Dear Professor Anita

My Name is Vineet George. I have done extensive research on combination and permutation and found consistent and uniform result. This result which I have found is written on a book known as Junction (an art of counting combination and permutation). I want everyone to know my research work. So I am writing this letter for the Publication of my research work on wikipidia free encyclopidia.

To view my research work then log on to the site: https://sites.google.com/site/junctionslpresentation/home also view The subtabs of proofs https://sites.google.com/site/junctionslpresentation/proof-for-advance-permutation

I have also written about my research work on the talk tab of Permutation of wikipidia encyclopideia site at the bottom page.

I came to know about you from this talk tab of permutation site.

Hope you will consider my request.

Thanking You Vineet George --182.19.78.181 (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see the response on the Permutation talk page. — Anita5192 (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Matrix splitting

It's overly technical in places. The lead could be made more accessible by elucidating some of the terms in it in plain English. I'm talking about phrases like: "Many iterative methods (e.g., for systems of differential equations) depend upon the direct solution of matrix equations involving matrices more general than tridiagonal matrices. These matrix equations can often be solved directly and efficiently when written as a matrix splitting." I think the first sentence could be explained more clearly without having to resort to following wikilinks, for example. The following sections are similarly technical. They don't include any fuller background on how matrix splitting fits into linear algebra (under the WP:MOS, everything discussed in the lead must be included in the body of the article; the lead is meant as a brief summary of its contents). Furthermore, the equations come with very little introduction and explanation. In the first equation, it's not explained that we're trying to solve for x, and in any event what that solution would mean or how it would be expressed. The same sorts of issues persist throughout. The fact that other math articles are similarly obscure is no reason for all math articles to be obscure and inaccessible. See WP:OSE. --Batard0 (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi Anita5192. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Mifter (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! — Anita5192 (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Anita

Please stop undoing the edits I do to my own comment. Do you see me vandalizing your own comments, or anyone else's, for that matter ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.214.3 (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't you rather have an official account? Then you would not have to keep editing your own comments. There are standard accepted protocols at Wikipedia. For example, using the link at the top of the page to insert a new section, instead of manually inserting it out of chronological order. — Anita5192 (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No.. because I rarely edit anything, and -when I do- it's usually something small, like a typo, or a mis-spelled link, etc. So, even if I would have an account, I wouldn't bother typing some 30+ characters (name/e-mail and password) just to make some tiny insignificant correction of a single character. As for the New Section, I don't think it was there a few years back, so I'm not accustomed to using it. I also didn't remember anymore whether the order was chronologically ascendant or descendant, since it's been quite a few years since I last left a comment on the Talk page. — Craciun Lucian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.233.239 (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, if you want to make it easy for yourself, then I suggest that when you make a comment on a talk page, you do exactly what you just did with your last comment above: sign it "Craciun Luciun", let the SignBot sign it, then leave it alone after that, even if you make multiple comments in the same section. That will be even faster for you and it will not be perceived as covering up your identity. By the way, since you do not have an account, you may not have seen the message I posted at User talk:79.113.218.157. Whatever you do, I wish you well with your editing. — Anita5192 (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Michael Kitces for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Kitces 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/Michael Kitces 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.

Hi Anita - the reason I'm notifying you about this is that you have edited Roth IRA, to which Michael Kitces, via his Wikipedia persona User:Finplanwiki, is adding original research and using his own website as a reference. He seems to be on Wikipedia for the purposes of self-promotion, as evidenced by the fact that User:Finplanwiki created the Michael Kitces article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I am a planner in the industry, not Kitces, I just use his work in my practice and am a fan so I wrote his bio. Been through this with an AfD nomination of his biography already, which was overturned when it was determined that I am not Kitces. Don't understand why this is being reopened again just because I quote his stuff. Finplanwiki (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)