# User talk:Anita5192

## Wrong Pseudocode

Hi Anita,

You have been reverting edits on Julia_set#Pseudocode_for_Normal_Julia_Sets.

I do not know why you are doing this, because the provided source code is just wrong and will not produce the wanted results under any circumstances.

I cannot think of any reason to revert those changes.

However I can understand that you do not want to use the naming conventions from an external site, but please let me (or others) correct the code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daknuett (talkcontribs) 17:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

What is so special about the new variable names that the new names produce the desired results while the old ones do not? Also, please leave an edit summary for each edit per WP:EDSUM and sign your posts to talk pages per WP:TPYES.—Anita5192 (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
If you use x0 and y0 as variables but assign only to x and y the code does not work. So If I change the variable names to the same name they produce the desired result. In Addition c must be assumed to be complex, so one has to add the real resp the imaginary part, changing c to cx and cy. However I have made some other changes, because for instance x0*x0 - y0*y0 + x0 will produce a function that is not even holonomic (and it is not Re(z^2)). As you might see this is not just renaming some variables. Daknuett (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Yours Daniel
I have put your pseudocode back in. Thank you for explaining what you did. In the future, please explain any edit you make if it is extensive and if it is not obvious what you are doing or why. Cheers!—Anita5192 (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

## Locations of major publishers

Hi, For the article Boolean ring, you asked why I removed the locations of two publishers, Addison-Wesley and Allyn and Bacon. The answer is that the locations are (i) potentially wrong, because major publishers publish the same book in different countries, and (ii) of little value, especially given that the publisher is wikilinked. Knowledge of publisher location was valuable generations ago, and still might be valuable nowadays for small publishers.  BetterMath (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

## Emotions

Re: This. Indignation is on the list twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.116.45 (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I reverted your edit because you did not explain your deletion of text. I have put it back the way it was after your deletion. In the future, please leave an edit summary per WP:EDSUM to explain what you are doing and why. Cheers!—Anita5192 (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, you reverted one of my edits where I included an interwiki link. It was already mentioned in the text above.

Is there a Wikipedia guideline that states not to include multiple interwiki link to the same page? From my point of view it is rather helpful to have those as I can imagine that many people jump right into a specific section rather than to read articles from top to bottom?! HerrHartmuth (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Kind regards :)

I removed the second link to iterative method per MOS:OVERLINK because “iterative method” is mentioned eight times throughout the article, is linked in the lead, and since matrix splittings are only (so far) used in iterative methods, any reader will know this, whether they read past the lead or jump into another section. If you insist on reinserting it, I will not remove it again, but I don’t think it helps. Cheers.—Anita5192 (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you. I have a requested move at Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#Requested_move_20_April_2018. Could you please comment on my move request? Thanks. Brian Everlasting (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

By the time I saw this requested move, it was already closed. I would have opposed it, as the actual meaning of "misconception" has nothing to do with gender.—Anita5192 (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

## Removal of my edit

A recent edit by myself in the Special Properties section is found to be removed. My edit contained reference to the publication where the result appeared with mathematical proof. The same is also available on the net. I don't see why it has been removed. Devadatta Joardar (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The citation is not complete. What is the periodical or the URL?—Anita5192 (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
The name of the periodical is At Right Angles, published by Azim Premji University, Bangalore, India. All this information was given as Reference. Moreover, the article as well as the periodical are available on the net. If anyone has any doubt about the authenticity of either the result or the reference one should do a checking. I feel harassed by such summary rejection. Devadatta Joardar (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I have reinserted the property. The way it was originally formatted, the periodical was not clear, so I reformatted it. Cheers!—Anita5192 (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I looked at the source and the proof is straightforward and easy to verify.—Anita5192 (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't matter. Unless it's in a reliably published source, it's original research. And it's not just the correctness, but the significance of this claim that we would look to the source to provide some evidence of. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't find Mr David Eppstein's reasons strong enough for the rejection. I thank both of you for the scrutiny, but I'd repeat that the source is a well known math periodical in India and the result has been established by mathematical proof along with two examples and is also verifiable independently. Devadatta Joardar (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
If you wish to pursue this further, you should continue this discussion on the Pythagorean triple talk page, instead of here.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

## Untitled

May I know what wrong Did I do

MasterOfRagas (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

What are you referring to?—Anita5192 (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

## 127.0.0.1

That's localhost, obvious trolling.PaleoNeonate – 02:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

## Divisor function: table

The new table is much better understandable than the old ones. Have you really had a look at it? It contains all functions up to x=4 and explains all the eaxmples in the text.

It also contains the prime factorization of n, which helps readers to understand the formulas. Wolfk.wk (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

An old table was still in the article. The tables were adjacent. Can you please format the new table better before inserting it, and replace "=" with "factorization?"—Anita5192 (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
There are 4 tables on the old page. The first table is different from the other 3, because it lists every number n=1..16 in one line, and contains comments. This table was retained. The other three list sigma_0 ... sigma_2. These 3 tables I had replaced with one, which contains all sigma_x up to x=4 and which imO is much better readable.
What do you mean with "format better"? Of course, the '=' could be be replaced by 'factorization'. I did not do this, simply because this heading blows up the column width, and this extedends the width of the whole table.Wolfk.wk (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The two tables were side by side and looked sloppy. Did you mean to retain the old table? If so, they should have been consecutive instead of adjacent.—Anita5192 (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I do not agree, that two tables side by side 'look sloppy'. Instead, I think is comfortable for readers, to use the free space on a web page on the right side of one table (exactly for this reason Wikipedia has introduced the feature 'float right' for tables and images, which I used here). It allows more fluent reading, without having too much scrolling.Wolfk.wk (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

## Revert on Matrix (mathematics)

Hello Anita, I noticed you reverted an edit I made to the article on "Matrix (mathematics)". I'm not sure how best to refer to the reversion except including this link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matrix_(mathematics)&oldid=prev&diff=860628661&diffmode=source

With my edit I was trying to correct a common conceptual error made in the article. A matrix is defined as a kind of data structure -- a kind of array. A holor is a generalization of this kind of data structure, including arrays of arbitrary shape and dimension and indices. A tensor, on the other hand, is not defined as a data structure; it is a geometric object that has certain properties, independent of choice of basis vectors. A tensor can be expressed as a holor, but it is not the same thing as a holor -- not every holor is a tensor.

I'm hoping we can discuss this and come to a consensus to decide what information to leave on the Matrix article. As it stands now with the reversion, I think it is conceptually misleading.

Zeroparallax (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Your argument is compelling. However, I have never heard of a holor before; I could not find anything describing it on the internet; the article, Parry Moon, to which holor is redirected, is supported only by sources attributable to one person, Parry Moon; and so it appeared to be original research and I reverted its inclusion in Matrix (mathematics).—Anita5192 (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Anita, for the consideration and reply. Although the term "holor" is not yet generally popular online, it can be found online with an academic literature search (e.g., using Google Scholar to find various published papers using the term), and it is presented at length in at least one book, published by Cambridge University Press, authored by an emeritus professor of mathematics (Domina Spencer) and an engineer (Parry Moon) -- the book where the term was coined. I actually found the term "holor" helpful and used it in my own dissertation (which helped me to earn a PhD in physics). It seems to me that there is great confusion about the term "tensor", and the concept of a "holor" is very helpful in illuminating what a tensor is by showing what a tensor is not, and by showing the larger context that tensors reside in. The term "holor" is what some people are reaching for when they erroneously use the term "tensor". (It's not always simply a different usage of the word "tensor"; it can be a self-contradicting usage that invalidates the usage.) Thus, I find the term "holor" to be very conceptually important, even if it is not yet easily found online.
You can find some other people who agree with this sentiment by reading the reviews of the book "Theory of Holors", where it is noted how helpful the terminology and book is for understanding tensors and related concepts: https://www.amazon.com/Theory-Holors-Parry-Hiram-Moon/product-reviews/0521245850
If we change the article back to referring to holors, I could add some more text to clarify the conceptual issue (as I did here, above), regarding data-structure definitions versus geometric-object definitions. Maybe I could also add references to the page (Parry Moon) that explains holors, pointing to independent published articles that use the term "holor".
Zeroparallax (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I suggest that you begin a discussion at Talk:Matrix (mathematics), repeat what you described above, and wait for other editors to reply. I do not have a problem with the content that you want to add, but I do have a problem with verifiability and consensus. The sources cited on the Parry Moon page are all by the same person, and are primary sources. The reference to holor in the Matrix (mathematics) article would be much more verifiable if secondary sources by several authors other than the originator of the term were cited. See WP:PSTS.—Anita5192 (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Anita. I like that suggestion. I've been adding to the section on holors additional references to primary sources and to secondary sources by several authors other than the originators. I'll probably get around to beginning a discussion at Talk:Matrix (mathematics) sometime soon.
Zeroparallax (talk) 06:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

## User talk:68.108.4.245: Difference between revisions

You are removing my link as a reference - and are labeling it as spam.

I am following the same standards as the other references that are listed. One of them is a fence company. Their link simply points to a blog page of theirs. My link points to a page on a website that has a full page of information on aluminum fence. So the link I am posting is the same as the other links.

I am not sure where you would get reputable information about a product like aluminum fence other than from a fence company or fence manufacturer. There is no national organization on aluminum fence that would be a sole reputable source.

I also see fence companies being used as references on other wiki fence articles about pool fence such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pool_fence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.4.245 (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia appreciates your interest in improving the articles, but there are standards for citations as well as content, style, etc. The mere existence of something in other articles is not sufficient justification for more of the same. Sometimes articles need work simply because no editor has yet gotten around to fixing them. The articles Pool fence and Aluminum fencing both need more citations to reliable sources, but not commercial web sites or blogs. I am not sure where to find reputable information about a product like an aluminum fence either, but I would probably start with a public library.—Anita5192 (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok - then you should remove the other two references - as they both sell a product and/or service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.4.245 (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Most editors do not have time to fix everything, which is why many articles are in a state of flux. If you want to research the fence articles, you are welcome to replace the existing references with better references.—Anita5192 (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense Anita - you are willing to remove the reference I put in there due to "link spam" but you won't remove the other links that violate the rules you are telling me? Are you saying I should be the one to remove the references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.4.245 (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Anita - I see that you have removed another reference that links to a non commercial website. If you are going to remove these references - then you have to remove ALL commercial links / references on the article page. If you are following a set of rules for Wikipedia - you have to apply the rules to all references on the article. The other two references are linking to commercial websites - which you saying is against the rules. Please remove the other references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.4.245 (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

## User https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Continued_fraction&diff=next&oldid=864018577

Hi! I'm reaching you because of following correction! The thing is that it's not about being more general it's about being correct - the requirement to be this number irrational is important here. Here's the quote from the relevant article:

The hypothesis that ξ is irrational cannot be omitted. Moreover the constant {\displaystyle \scriptstyle {\sqrt {5}}} \scriptstyle {\sqrt {5}} is the best possible; if we replace {\displaystyle \scriptstyle {\sqrt {5}}} \scriptstyle {\sqrt {5}} by any number {\displaystyle \scriptstyle A>{\sqrt {5}}} \scriptstyle A>{\sqrt {5}} and we let {\displaystyle \scriptstyle \xi =(1+{\sqrt {5}})/2} \scriptstyle \xi =(1+{\sqrt {5}})/2 (the golden ratio) then there exist only finitely many relatively prime integers m, n such that the formula above holds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabunc~enwiki (talkcontribs) 12:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

As you can see, I have already reverted my edit because Hurwitz's theorem (number theory) confirms your edit that ξ be irrational.—Anita5192 (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

## Active and passive rotation

I'm aware my english is poor, but wouldn't it be better you improve my language? The example I added definitely shows more than the 2-dimensional introductory example. Madyno (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

A second example for Active and passive transformation is unnecessary, and the existing example in two dimensions is simple and easy to understand, beside the English grammar issues.—Anita5192 (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, the example is in 3D, is numerical, and clearly shows the difference in meaning of the same coordinates as result of active or passive rotation. So, what's your objetion? Madyno (talk) 10:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

## Emotion edits - edit summary

thanks Anita. jcjc777 JCJC777 (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

You’re welcome. Thank you for all your diligent work on Emotion! Anita5192 (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

## ArbCom 2018 election voter message

 Hello, Anita5192. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

## ArbCom 2018 election voter message

 Hello, Anita5192. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

## Original Research in Natural Convection Page

You recently marked the section I added onto page for Natural Convection, [Convection at Freezing Temperatures], as possible original research. To my knowledge, I kept within the guidelines to avoid this. All the information presented in the section originates from a 1999 paper where the investigators experimentally observed the title phenomenon and then modeled it computationally. The paper has been cited by numerous other researchers in the field of computational fluid dynamics. How can I improve the section? I appreciate your help. Egasmen (talk | contribs) 03:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

If the paper you cited has been cited by numerous other researchers, then the best way to improve the section would be to cite several sources by different researchers (for example, three or four), rather than just the one you cited.—Anita5192 (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I have added a few more sources which all support the information presented. Is this sufficient? Thanks again for your help. Egasmen (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
The new sources appear to be excellent. Thank you for your attention to detail and accuracy. Happy editing! Anita5192 (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the help! Egasmen (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)