User talk:Oleg Alexandrov

Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post.

---

Archive: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

---

Quick Favor

I noticed that you're an admin and I've been seeing you involved in AWB a lot. Could you possibly go over and approve the people applying for AWB privileges? My sock account (for spellchecking and repetitive edits) is one of them. Thanks, Alphachimp ^talk 17:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I am admin, but I have no involvment with AWB except posting a couple of annoyed rants concerning people overusing the tool for trivial things. I also never used the tool myself.

As such, I don't feel really confident to aprove of people applying for AWB privileges. I suggest you ask on AWB's talk page for help, somebody may answer. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilkinson's polynomial

(I'm posting this at both Arthur's and Oleg's talk page; my apologies for the redundancy.) I wonder if you might take a quick look at this AfD. I think keep to be in order, inasmuch as Wilkinson's polynomial is, I think, notable, and inasmuch as, though unsourced and perhaps not altogether accurate, the article isn't wholly unsalvagable, but the discussion would surely benefit from the insinuation of someone better-versed in numerical analysis than I. Thanks in advance for any guidance you might be able to provide at the AfD or the article's talk page... :) Joe 04:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Linux

Hi. Can you please explain this reversion in more detail at talk:Linux?

To me that note is very distracting and not very helpful. People looking for GNU only will not type GNU/Linux, and the relationship between GNU and Linux is explained at the correct place in the article. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK putting "X is redirected here" blurbs atop articles when 'X' is a very common name for the subject of the article is standard practice. Saying where the GNU article is serves as an explanation so people don't have to say "Okay...and wtf is GNU?" should they be that completely ignorant. Also, I'm pretty sure the "GNU/Linux" proponents would eat you alive and yet another war on this matter would be spawned. ¦ Reisio 05:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Per my request above, this is being discussed at talk:Linux. But thank you for your comment. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"By Quality" log

On the "Novel articles by quality" log I now find working with the page increasingly difficult due to it's growing size. Can I suggest that this page is separated out into it's component days. This would mean something like "Novel articles by quality log" would be a overall page of links to "Novel articles by quality log for 2006-07-25" or somesuch. Then we could get to work with a far smaller file and load lead data, reducing the server load.

I would also suggest that all the other subject logs should take an identical approach. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Subpages would be an issue as the bot would generate hundreds of mostly unhelpful log pages every year for each project.

I made the logs automatically keep their size under 300KB. If that's still too big, I can make the logs be even shorter. The information which is being cut off by shorter logs, that is, logs for events say two weeks before current, is always in the history and can be searched for if necessary.

I would think that this is the simplest thing to do. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, logs can always be trimmed by hand, if necessary (for most projects it is not). The bot won't mind and won't overwrite any such changes. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the help - we'll see how we get one with that limit set. Maybe a date based cut off would have been better, anyway we'll set how it goes. Is this just for us or for other projects as well. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

We do have a date-based cutoff, it is one month. But your project tends to accumulate huge logs, that's why there is the extra condition that the log also be limited by size. I believe most projects don't have that huge level of changes, and even yours will not accumulate logs as much once things settle down a bit and most articles become evaluated. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by David Cruise

Now that he has vandalized Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics, I think that it is about time that he was blocked!!!!! JRSpriggs 05:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Mathbot rocks

The da Vinci Barnstar Mathbot rocks! evrik 01:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I would actually be interested in what you think makes mathbot so cool, that is, what applications you think are more helpful. May give me a clue on what else I could work on. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• I like the work it does in updating statistics for the Wikiprojects. --evrik 01:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Complex Number page

if you have a problem with my edits, please refrain from whole sale revert. Instead, edit. Because, wikipedia grows by piece-wise contribution, and that is the gist of its success. In my complex number edit which i spend quite some effort over 10 or so edits, i have at least corrected one technical error and added few info that are not there or ambiguous. I think you've been following my tail for some reason. (we first “met” probably over a year ago) I know what you want from me. You want me to prioritize the political or bureaucratical process over contributing content on wikipedia. That itself is questionable, but in any case should not be forced onto everyone. Xah Lee 09:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

In theory that's indeed how it goes. A user makes a valuable contribution, and other users take time to fix whatever style things are necessary, Wikipedia grows that way, and everybody benefits.

In practice however, there are some trolls who do crappy edits, not that they have not been told, and it is much simpler to just revert the whole thing rather than spend a huge amount of time hunting for that little golden nugget hidden in there (assuming that there is one, your edits tend to have not only style, but also content mistakes).

As far as your conspiracy theory with me following you around for political reasons, what if we just say that I had complex number on my watchlist for a very long time (like many other math articles), and that you are doing crappy work wherever I see you. I understand you may be more happy with your own explanation, but mine happens to be closer to the truth. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice refutation. However, i think your revert on my Complex Number page and Mobius Transformation page are emotional reactions. You may not agree when i say you follow my tails (you call it “conspiracy theory”), but a fact is that i think most or every math article i touched you came and revert. I thought our problems were over when the circle inversion and reflection thru a point article disputes are resolved satisfactorily on both our ends, and you didn't seem to object or get involved with my editing of mobius transformation page... thus i kept on and also ventured to edit the Complex Number page (which i broached in the talk page first!). But then, you appeared, with a whopper move, reverted it the sequence of edits i've made in a couple of days, leaving a slighting remark, and also reverted to the mobius transformation page. So, in general, after all said and done, i don't think the last two reverts are reasonable. Now please note, you please go on and do whatever that is you do or believe, which is fine with me. I just want you to know my opinions. I will probably take a break from editing math articles. I understand my edit are perceived as problematic by some. Xah Lee 19:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Take a break? Good! It'll save everybody a lot of trouble. Frankly, I'm surprised you haven't been banned yet. Oleg, I recommend you do follow this guy around to make sure his crappy edits don't remain on Wikipedia. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 21:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, Xah, just put some care when you write. You've been here since 2003, plenty of time to learn how to do a good job. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Oleg for the reversion of Mobius transformation - I think it was the best thing to do :-) Madmath789 16:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"By importance" categories

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for review

Hi, I saw you had made some of the initial contributions to the Boris Galerkin article. The article has a cleanup request and I have done some cleanup, but it is still not close to perfect. I would very much appreciate it, if you could have a look at the article. Bfg 14:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

24601

I think I liked it better as a redirect. Would there be any objection to killing the redirect from 24601 to 24601 (number)? (I should check Project Mathematics more often.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Numbers and dates the article about the number 24601 should be at 24601 (number). I agree that the redirect 24601 is unhelpful (it is not a year). I will delete it now. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Boundary value problem

I moved the examples as I think that they were long an relatively technical, I saw that that had been done in Integral (examples) so I followed the naming convention in use there. It would be better if either Integral (examples) was called Examples of integrals or we kept the Boundary value (examples) name, I would do not mind. I saw other people on the talk page asking if the examples were too much and I think three in an article this size was. I added wordy examples so I hope that compensates. I just thought I should explain myself to you as another maths editor. Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 09:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I think the name Boundary value (examples) is not really good, should be either Boundary value problem (examples) (the word "problem" added in) or Boundary value problems (examples) (plural problems), or Examples of boundary value problems which is what I had renamed it to. I think the last title is better, but if you really prefer one of the other two, you could move the article to that name. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 09:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

The E=MC2 Barnstar Awarded to Oleg for his excellent work with Mathbot and Wikipedia 1.0. --kingboyk 12:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)