Jump to content

User talk:Michael Hardy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 52: Line 52:
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by {{noping|Anna Frodesiak}}. Your comments [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Pre-RfA_opinion_page|here]] is very much appreciated. Many thanks. [[User:Jim Cartar|Jim Carter]] through [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by {{noping|Anna Frodesiak}}. Your comments [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Pre-RfA_opinion_page|here]] is very much appreciated. Many thanks. [[User:Jim Cartar|Jim Carter]] through [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Jim Cartar@enwiki using the list at //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_administrators -->
<!-- Message sent by User:Jim Cartar@enwiki using the list at //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_administrators -->

== Cleanup of a page ==

Dear Michael, it seems to me that in [[Granger causality]], the subsections after [[Granger causality#Reconstructing a sample network]] are merely describing the detailed experimental procedure of one of the papers. Should I delete it? I hesitate, mainly because it is a big chuck of text (unsourced though). <small>(I have found you because of [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&diff=558347080&oldid=558346724 your edits on anohter article].)</small> gratefully, [[User:BiObserver|Taha]] ([[User talk:BiObserver|talk]]) 20:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:50, 19 June 2014

Sieve of Nicholls

Where would you recommend I look to publishing the results of this work?

I appreciate the distinction between referencing peer reviewed content, and being peer reviewed content.

Is there a reason why the wikipedia engine hasn't been cloned to facilitate the publishing of original material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjnicholls44 (talkcontribs) 16:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't thought about a wiki for original research. There are various journals of number theory and there are journals that accept papers in many areas of mathematics, including number theory. But if you want to put it on a web site without going through a full refereeing process, you could try this one. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google Australia listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Google Australia. Since you had some involvement with the Google Australia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 06:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cayley's sextic

Hi Michael, nearly 10 years since you taught me that Wikipedia was case sensitive! Thanks for your typography on Cayley's sextic. There is no need to to change "date" to "year" in citations, unless harvnb is being used, and probably not even then. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 17:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Math Overflow

Michael, do you know if MO or MO Meta have any kind of private message system, or a way for logged in contributors to contact other contributors by email? I don't an account there so I can't access all of its features, so I can't tell if something like that exists without enrolling. Of course in many cases it's possible to locate the person's contact info with web searches, but not always. Thanks. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was no such system last time I checked. That was a couple of years ago. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sheppard's correction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Estimation (statistics) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Chords.svg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical population / time series

Dear Michael, I saw your removal on time series in the article of statistical population. You're right that time series will mostly concern sample data. But there may be exceptions too. For example, take the time series of the number of soldiers in the Roman Empire by January 1st of every year, up to its fall in the year 476. That's definitely population data. (Just for info, this time series text is not original text of myself, it's something that I moved away from the article on Statistics (too much detail there) to the Statistical population article. But at least I can defend the possibility of the text.) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A historical perspective on moment in physics and mathematics

I have posted a comment in your article/discussion on 'moment'. Please consider my request to elaborate the historical perspective on the issue. Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup of a page

Dear Michael, it seems to me that in Granger causality, the subsections after Granger causality#Reconstructing a sample network are merely describing the detailed experimental procedure of one of the papers. Should I delete it? I hesitate, mainly because it is a big chuck of text (unsourced though). (I have found you because of your edits on anohter article.) gratefully, Taha (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]