User talk:MasaComp: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:57, 8 July 2014

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, MasaComp. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Chillum 19:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Chillum --MasaComp (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Hello, I'm Robert McClenon. I noticed that you made a comment on the page WP: Help Desk that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Your criticism of another editor at the Help Desk could be viewed as a personal attack. Be civil. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of AjoChhand Machine for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article AjoChhand Machine 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/AjoChhand Machine 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't litter the debate with rows of asterisks to separate threads. Firstly, they won't be rendered, and secondly the convention is to WP:INDENT for this purpose. Also, where you comment in more than one place, please sign all your insertions. You are rapidly making a mess of the page. SpinningSpark 01:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MasaComp,

My rule of thumb for CompSci research is that when an article has picked up ~100 citations, we can start thinking about creating an article. In making that determination of WP:NOTABILITY, we don't take into account the quality of the writing or the soundness of the ideas. Drop in again when you've hit 100 cites and we'll talk.

Best,

Hey Lesser Cartographies

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is sum of several other articles published in PNAS, Nature Physics, read them all, total citations have crossed more than 100, please, do not talk about citation, many article on computer science gets more than 100 citations stills needs to be rejected, you know that me too. Isnt it. Citation does not cross 100, we would never have created this page, so we have it by your rule of thumb.

For your next paper, you can cite Time, clocks and the ordering of events in a distributed system. That has (as of a few minutes ago) 8607 citations, which, according to you, would provide your paper with impeccable notability.

Kidding aside, actual scientists aren't evaluated on the citation counts of the works that they cite. They're evaluated on the citation counts of their own work. Yours stands at 2. That's not going to get you an article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lesser Cartographies ::Lesser Cartographies You are abusing and taunting the Information paper, ignoring my statement that Information is not the one paper used in this Article. You are ignoring other related papers, because you know those are cited around 1000 times in total, and that puts your "2 times cited" argument in deep trouble. I listed all citations already. You are a computer scientist, have you tried to understand what has been experimentally demonstrated in Nature Physics and PNAS paper, for which explanation is made in the Information paper. Do you understand those experimental paper? I challenge you that if you can fit those experimental data PNAS and Nature Physics using Turing machine, I bet you cannot.

Think, if you have tape inside a tape, can you deduce it to Turing machine. I am suggesting officially, if you have that knowledge in computer science, prove it here. Take a fractal tape system and mathematically deduce that it gets back to Turing. It does not. This is what scientists have been looking for years. And Since 2008, in a series of papers we have proved that using a very old concept of clock inside a clock, this is possible to do. This excites every single scientist for 10 years we present this result. Unfortunately you do not enjoy works, you know that the technology is realized, the patent is received.

Sometimes, please enjoy the article, excite with new ideas, and ask valid questions about how all papers are integrated? Look at all other associated papers, as I argued, reviewers review the paper for 8 months with series of questions and modifications and appreciates for establishing the collective encessity, that the "clock like computing" which is the key part of the AjoChhand machine article has been described in other papers. One paper Information does not make an article. The AjoChhand machine article is not written based on one paper, all related papers are referred, noted, but you possibly for a political motive blindly sticked to Information which is a summary of several other papers. In "information paper", actual technical papers are cited, no technical discussions are there in "Information", so this paper technically should not be given singular importance. As the AjoChhand machine is written, it stands on the columns of several top notch highly cited papers, you cannot stop this article. So blindly banging on Information paper blindly, may harp political non-scientific mindset but that would be disgraceful for Wikipedia, because the facts are clear, the article very clearly cites and gives all papers equal importance, if you want we can change the title. But be receptive.--MasaComp (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Frequency fractal for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Frequency fractal 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/Frequency fractal 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. SpinningSpark 01:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited AjoChhand Machine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Periodic. 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) 08:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 Hey [[User:Lesser Cartographies|Lesser Cartographies]] ::[[User:Lesser Cartographies|Lesser Cartographies]]
-You are abusing and taunting the Information paper, ignoring my statement that Information is not the one paper used in this Article. You are ignoring other related papers, because you know those are cited around 1000 times in total. I listed that already. Sometimes, please enjoy science, please learn to appreciate good work, ranting me would work? Look at other papers, you have been told several times, that the "clock like computing" which is the key part of the AjoChhand machine article has been described in other papers. One paper Information does not make an article. The AjoChhand machine article is not written based on one paper, all related papers are referred, noted, but you possibly for a political motive blindly sticked to Information which is a summary of several other papers. In "information paper", actual technical papers are cited, no technical discussions are there in "Information", so this paper technically should not be given singular importance.
+You are abusing and taunting the Information paper, ignoring my statement that Information is not the one paper used in this Article. You are ignoring other related papers, because you know those are cited around 1000 times in total, and that puts your "2 times cited" argument in deep trouble. I listed all citations already. You are a computer scientist, have you tried to understand what has been experimentally demonstrated in Nature Physics and PNAS paper, for which explanation is made in the Information paper. Do you understand those experimental paper? I challenge you that if you can fit those experimental data PNAS and Nature Physics using Turing machine, I bet you cannot.
+Think, if you have tape inside a tape, can you deduce it to Turing machine. I am suggesting officially, if you have that knowledge in computer science, prove it here. Take a fractal tape system and mathematically deduce that it gets back to Turing. It does not. This is what scientists have been looking for years. And Since 2008, in a series of papers we have proved that using a very old concept of clock inside a clock, this is possible to do. This excites every single scientist for 10 years we present this result. Unfortunately you do not enjoy works, you know that the technology is realized, the patent is received.
+Sometimes, please enjoy the article, excite with new ideas, and ask valid questions about how all papers are integrated? Look at all other associated papers, as I argued, reviewers review the paper for 8 months with series of questions and modifications and appreciates for establishing the collective encessity, that the "clock like computing" which is the key part of the AjoChhand machine article has been described in other papers. One paper Information does not make an article. The AjoChhand machine article is not written based on one paper, all related papers are referred, noted, but you possibly for a political motive blindly sticked to Information which is a summary of several other papers. In "information paper", actual technical papers are cited, no technical discussions are there in "Information", so this paper technically should not be given singular importance.
+As the AjoChhand machine is written, it stands on the columns of several top notch highly cited papers, you cannot stop this article. So blindly banging on Information paper blindly, may harp political non-scientific mindset but that would be disgraceful for Wikipedia, because the facts are clear, the article very clearly cites and gives all papers equal importance, if you want we can change the title. But be receptive.--[[User:MasaComp|MasaComp]] ([[User talk:MasaComp#top|talk]]) 19:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 == Nomination of [[:Frequency fractal]] for deletion ==