# 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)

 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)

.

Congrats Anita  ! —Dev Anand Sadasivamt@lk 04:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Anita5192 (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2016 (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)

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

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
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)

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. 22:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, Red Hat. My initial impression of the page Michael Kitces is that it should be deleted for two reasons: 1. The person described does not appear to be noteworthy. 2. The sources cited are all web sites, which are not generally as reliable as many other types of sources, and their sheer number lends no further credibility. If this person truly is noteworthy, then surely there is reliable documentation elsewhere. If I comment on the page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Kitces, I will first carefully review the relevant Wikipedia guidelines and try to be as objective as possible. — Anita5192 (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Anita. The link should have been Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Kitces_(2nd_nomination), should you choose to chime in with your views. 22:38, 15 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)

## Proposed deletion of List of Schuhplattler organizations

The article List of Schuhplattler organizations has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Every link an external link. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LINKFARM apply, however good the intentions of providing the information.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fiddle Faddle 09:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC) Fiddle Faddle 09:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I have read some of the links listed above and I understand now why Wikipedia is not the place for such an extensive list of external links. — Anita5192 (talk) 06:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

## Sorry

I apolagize for my revision on linear system equations. I made a mistake whilst doing some work and tried to see the article and thought to correct it. In turn i was wrong and tried to undo my edit and forgot about one of the lines. You may delete this after reading it.

SahilK7654 (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)SahilK7654SahilK7654 (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

## You've got mail!

Message added 15:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

## Harmonic oscillator

Respectfully, I fail to understand how the link to springs in series and parallel is not relevant for the page on the harmonic oscillator. Skater00 (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The article about harmonic oscillator is about harmonic oscillators specifically, not springs in general. Springs are related to harmonic oscillators, but then so are other things. Also, the article series and parallel springs describes a specific aspect of springs, not springs in general. Harmonic oscillator already links to springs. The concept of series and parallel springs adds nothing essential to harmonic oscillator. Harmonic oscillators can be understood without knowing anything about series and parallel springs. That is why I removed the link. The link to series and parallel springs belongs more properly under spring (device). — Anita5192 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

## WP:OUP access

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to Oxford University Press's humanities materials through the TWL partnership described at WP:OUP . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email from User:Nikkimaria several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved.

## Divisor function

You reverted my edit on divisor function. I deleted the category number theory because it is already included in the more precise category divisor function. The category number theory has quite many entries, and hence it is good with more specific categories. K9re11 (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, then I will leave it as it is, since I do not have a strong feeling about this. However, I believe the general categories should be listed as well as the more specific categories, so that readers can see all the categories to which the subject matter belongs. In any case, readers do not have to read all the entries of the general category number theory. — Anita5192 (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

## You've got mail!

Message added 03:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

## Thanks for the revert

I agree with your revert on ODE. Someone had that material in differential equations, and I was removing it as part of a cleanup. However, there was a template pointing to it (the template links "degree" and "order" separately), so I took it out and put it in ODE. I think the best solution is just to delete the portion of the template referring to 'degree'.Brirush (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the link to "degree" in the template.Brirush (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

## Abelian group

Hello. You reverted my edit to add Non-abelian group to the "see also" list. I was aware that there is a link in the lead, but to find it you have to search the text and notice the "counterparts". So I think it helps to have this as one of the half-dozen related topics. Is there a rule somewhere that that anything mentioned in the lead cannot appear lower down the page? Incidentally, this might have been because I typed in 'non-commutative group', which is mentioned as another name, but which, unlike 'noncommutative group' does not redirect. (Please reply here) Imaginatorium (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

## TWL HighBeam check-in

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

## TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

## TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

## The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

## ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

## Ellipse - parametric equation

Hi Anita,

I noticed you undid my undo of an edit to the narrative about the parametric equation for an ellipse in the early part of the page on Ellipses.

If you look at the larger section further down the page entitled Parametric Form in Canonical Position, it says: "Note that the parameter t (called the eccentric anomaly in astronomy) is not the angle of (X(t),Y(t)) with the X-axis." This is correct. The narrative I removed, which was only added recently, contradicts this; it says that theta (or 't') is the angle between the ray connecting the origin to (x,y). As far as I understand, t (or theta) is the angle between the blue line and the x-axis in the animation in the section I refer to above.

Perhaps I misunderstood the narrative, so could you explain how the points (x, y) can be replaced with a.cos(t) and b.sin(t) where t is the angle at the origin between the ray through (x,y) and the positive x-axis?

Thanks! BlueEventHorizon (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. My main concern was that ${\displaystyle \theta }$ was not defined before it was used in the equations. I have now tried to make this more clear by defining ${\displaystyle \theta }$ and repeating some of what is written later about the eccentric anomaly. It is unfortunate, however, that the entire section uses ${\displaystyle \theta }$ as the parameter instead of t, which is confusing. Perhaps this should be changed throughout the section. What do you think? — Anita5192 (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you that the article should consistently use 't' or ${\displaystyle \theta }$ throughout. Given that there is a whole section on the parametric representation further down the page, perhaps it should not even be addressed in the earlier section we have been making changes to. I am not really familiar with the protocols of editing pages, so I rarely get involved unless I see something that affects me directly (I was trying to solve Project Euler problem 525, so I was researching ellipses!). Anyway, you clearly have a lot more experience with this stuff, so I will defer to your judgement. BlueEventHorizon (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

## Stiff equation Comment

Thank you, --CuriousMind01 (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems fine now. Thank you for moving it. — Anita5192 (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

it wasn't giberish ,perhaps you could have called it unrelated content, but it certainly isn't giberish.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crlinformative (talkcontribs) 16:22, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

Okay, it may not have been complete gibberish, but it was so sloppy it was barely readable, not closely related, and did not belong on the talk page. There is more than one person who has been posting such drivel on talk pages lately, and most editors seem to be afraid to remove it. The next time this happens, if the content is not completely incomprehensible, I will use a different comment if I remove it. — Anita5192 (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

If there is a grammatical error should not you correct that error instead of deleting the whole statement? It takes quite a bit of effort to type into Wikipedia with a touch screen. I would appreciate it if you were to simply tell me which statements confuse you.(Crlinformative (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC))

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mirage (1965 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anne Seymour. 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) 09:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. — Anita5192 (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

## Dreieckkonstruktion

Servus Anita,
zuerst ein herzliches Dankeschön für deine Verbesserungen in meinen Beiträgen in Englisch. Da mein erlerntes Schulenglisch leider schon sehr weit zurückliegt, benutze ich für meine Wiki-Beiträge in Englisch den "Google-Übersetzer". Mich freut es sehr, dass ich in deinem Profil von deinen Deutschkenntnissen (deshalb habe ich hier meine Muttersprache gewählt) und von deinem Interesse an Geometrie lesen konnte. Ich wäre dir sehr dankbar, wenn du mich bei folgendem Thema "Dreieckkonstruktion" unterstützen könntest. Dazu sieh dir bitte in meiner Sandbox einen Entwurf an, noch in Deutsch, vielleicht siehst du in welchem Artikel, nach evtl. erforderlichen Änderungen, das Thema gut passen würde. Mit vielen Grüßen aus München Petrus3743 (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Servus, Petrus,
Im erstend Abschnitt, "Konstruktion," kann ein Dreieck nicht eindeutig aus dem vorletzten Fall, "Zwei Seiten und ein anliegender Winkel (SSA)," konstruiert sein. Dieser Fall ist doppelsinnig.
Ich kann die restlichen Abschnitte nicht verstehen. Sie scheinen viel zu kompliziert für ein einfaches Dreieck. Ich glaube dass Sie am Anfang angeben sollten, genau was Sie wollen beweisen, und warum.
Glückliche Bearbeitung! — Anita5192 (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Danke, ich habe meine Antwort vom 18:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC) hier gelöscht und in Petrus3743-sandbox-talk eingetragen.
Bitte tragen Sie Ihre Gedanken/Verbesserungsvorschläge auch darin ein. Grüße aus dem sonnigen München Petrus3743 (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Danke Anita für Ihre Wünsche, aber ich finde leider keine Möglichkeit diesen Spezialfall in Wikipedia einzuarbeiten (keine geeignete Seite, Beitrag wird mit den erforderlichen Informationen zu lang). Die Sandbox wird mit deren Diskussionsseite gelöscht. Liebe Grüße Petrus3743 (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tone (literature), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barron's. 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) 09:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! It is fixed now.—Anita5192 (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

## Think, Anita Rivas, before you accuse and talk!

Do not rush to act and refrain from carelessly exposing your thoughts and accusations, so as your reputation is not ruined. Then even getting forever blocked from editing Wikipedia ever again would not salvage it, once you flush it on your own. Keep in mind that people, smarter than you, might be watching. DO NOT REMOVE EDITS THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. Be modest and leave scientific discourse for more capable editors. I hope you'll learn your lesson quickly, so as we can declare this issue clarified but closed.PseudoScientist (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

According to David Eppstein, as of 17 Jul 2016, PseudoScientist and J20160628 have now been blocked for confirmed sockpuppetry. — Anita5192 (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

## Need help on the Ellipse article

Since you previously reverted an edit which I also did, could you please weigh in on the talk page for Ellipse. There are two "signed" editors as well as an anonymous editor who I think are the same person, and it is getting a little frustrating that we are not converging. Thanks. (Also note that this subject is evidently referred to in the above section.) LaurentianShield (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

## Is cube is not small part of cuboid?

Having equal dimensions a cuboid is called a square.Are you agree with my argument if not why?Nagric (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

If I understand your question, here are my beliefs, based upon my mathematical experience. Since cube is a special case of cuboid, cuboid merits its own page. Since cube occurs with great frequency in mathematics literature (in fact, greater than cuboid) it merits its own page. — Anita5192 (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

## A kitten for you!

Hi Anita5192, thanks for your thanks for my edits at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right circular hollow cylinder

Coolabahapple (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Action fiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mystery. 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) 11:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! It is now fixed.—Anita5192 (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

## ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

 Hello, Anita5192. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please stop making changes like this without discussing first. The scheme I used is not contrary to WP:FNNR as your edit summary suggests. The guideline actually says editors may use any section title that they choose. Standardising them is an issue that has been frequently rejected by the community, see Wikipedia:Perennial proposals § Changes to standard appendices. Changing between acceptable styles without a substantial reason is explicitly prohibited by the MOS at WP:STYLEVAR and MOS:STYLEVAR. Consequently, I have reverted your edit. SpinningSpark 18:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

## Hyperbola

Anita, Thanks for your hawk eyes; I am the 68.98.184.101 and wonder if the following needs fixing; "The distance from either focus to either asymptote is b, the semi-minor axis;..." should IMO per all previous discussion have 'focus' replaced by 'vertex' at minimum, and might be clearer by saying "The distance from either vertex to either of its asymptotes is b,...."? Jedwin 68.98.184.101 (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I just changed one line to read correctly, "The distance b (not shown) is the length of the perpendicular segment from either focus to the asymptotes." It is unfortunate that the diagram does not show b or θ. The line which reads, "The distance from either focus to either asymptote is b . . ." is already correct.—Anita5192 (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Anita, A*A + B*B == C*C cannot exist if the focus is used because it is not a right triangle; and also, C is already the distance from the center to the focus that is actually A*(E-1) beyond A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.184.101 (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
b is the distance from a focus to an asymptote, i.e., the perpendicular distance, hence the triangle is a right triangle. Imagine taking the triangle with base from C to the vertex and a right angle at the vertex, and flipping it over. If you do the math, you will see that it is correct.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

## Interantional Society for Research on Emotions

Hi Anita

I moved the TOC to the top and added a new heading: International Society for Research on Emotions. This is the major international society in the field and its members include all the living scholars cited in this article. Please correspond with me before taking any action.

Cheers Neal Ashkanasy Nealash (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

What is your reasoning behind rearranging Emotion in a non-standard layout? Please discuss this on the Emotion talk page and be more specific in you edit summaries. — Anita5192 (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

TOC should no be so far down the page that users can;t find it. Nealash (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

What would be helpful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subuey (talkcontribs) 02:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Since you are new to Wikipedia editing (you just began editing today), I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the protocol that editors follow to improve Wikipedia and make it readable and friendly for all. For starters, you should read the articles at the links that other editors have put on your talk page. Everything important I can think of for a beginner is already listed there. Happy editing! Anita5192 (talk) 04:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I did not just begin editing. rediculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subuey (talkcontribs) 19:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

## Message from visitors

Good morning (my local time)!
You have reverted my edits on two pages.
The edits were required, as "vOICe" is actually "The vOICe Auditory Display technology", according to the inventor's product website. Also, Wikipedia reads lowercase and uppercase words differently. THE VOICE & The Voice are not the same ones. They are made the same because of appropriate redirects.
I am okay with your edits, if THE VOICE did not lead to a page that existed - I have forgotten the context and objective, but please don't direct me to rules, like WP:DABSTYLE and WP:DABENTRY. Madam, common sense is far better than rules. No hurt or insult is intended by my present post. Instead, your noble intent is acknowledged and appreciated.
Regards. Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

## Dialogue

Items in disambiguation pages do not have to be a link. Several items in Dialogue (disambiguation) are not links. Every item should have a blue link but not necessarily the first word. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC) May you please answer? --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Your edit also was not formatted properly. I just inserted a link to the Publications section of Phi Sigma Tau, so now it is a link.—Anita5192 (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, but it did not "have to" be a link. As I said, every item should have a blue link but not necessarily the first word. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

## Etymology of sine

Hi Anita, you recently reverted a revert of mine and provided citations to dictionaries. I would like you to reconsider based on the etymology section of the same article and the authority of the mathematical historians Victor Katz and Florian Cajori. This etymology has been well studied by specialists and the terms that I objected to do not appear as primary translations in this work. Since there is a referenced section on this topic, I did not feel that it was necessary to provide my references in the lead and putting in dictionaries as sources just underlines the need to use more specialized sources. Thanks --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, take a peek at History of trigonometry#Etymology. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I have put the original version back in place, because the sources in the etymology section appear to be more dependable. Thank you for pointing this out to me.—Anita5192 (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

## Arithmetic function

Dear Anita,

The articla was reverted back, because one had no reference for the entropy ${\displaystyle H_{f}}$ being additive. This I changed by giving a proof that the entropy ${\displaystyle H_{f}}$ is always additive. So I think it is fair to revert it back and include the passage about the entropy. I don't want to change it back on my own, but it would be nice if you revert it back.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.69.187.201 (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on the Arithmetic function talk page.—Anita5192 (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

## Mathematics Definition

Hi Anita5192, I see you have a problem with my contribution of a Mathematics Definition. "Posting nonsense is not helpful" please point out to me what in that definition is inaccurate or nonsense?

Respectfully 105.233.35.66 (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

## List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 2010s

Hi User:Anita5192, do you know how some of the side images on the number ones article can be rephrased, like the Ed Sheeran one near the bottom, how can it be phrased to include his 2014 number ones "Sing" and "Thinking Out Loud" please?--Theo Mandela (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The captions all seem too verbose. Rather than trying to include several of their hit songs, I would describe the songs in the main text of the article and have the captions briefly describe only the artist. There are guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Captions, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images.—Anita5192 (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
User:Anita5192, I try to avoid having to phrase sentences, or even captions on articles because I'm not good at it, but it looks like it's your strongpoint, so if your not too busy can you please edit at least the last couple of captions for Drake, Sheeran and Luis Fonsi?--Theo Mandela (talk) 05:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

## Yes, but...

About this revert, I realize the changed way was correct, but it was a 10+ year old comment by someone else on a talk page. It's certainly not a big deal, but that's why I put it back. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

What program do you use to create matrix notation?

How should we formalize the maximization of the sum future freedom of action (n = number of actions) for all individuals (I)? max &sigma I &sub n?

TY 2001:48F8:29:0:74AE:E60D:6335:4C22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

To typeset matrices, you can either go to WP:MATH, scroll down to "Fractions, matrices, multilines," and read the typesetting instructions; or simply look at the text used to generate matrices in an existing article.
I don't understand your second question.
Happy editing!—Anita5192 (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

## /* Mersenne numbers in nature and elsewhere */ pyramid charts

I did. Must i repeat myself to everyone individually? i do not need a citation for alt text for an image from which the fact is immediately verifiable. read what i wrote carefully and please try understand it by trying it for yourself, because it is not wrong. Please provide an improvement as there is no valid reason for its removal, only improvement. I don't have time for petty irrelevant squabbling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulprit001 (talkcontribs) 03:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

## ArbCom 2017 election voter message

 Hello, Anita5192. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)