User talk:Billlion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A slug


photos of alan turing building[edit]

Hi. Now that it's summer (you wanted to wait for a sunny day...) maybe you would be able to take some new photos? both inside and outside are more finished now. regards, Marmelad (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ole Nydahl article[edit]

Hello, I see that you have been active in editing the Ole Nydahl article. Recently it seems that unbalanced edits are being made to this article, mainly that well-sourced quotes are being removed from the controversies section of the article. I have recently reverted some of these edits before creating this account, but I can only do so much without breaking the 3 revert rule. I ask that you help keep the article balanced, and in accord with Wikipedia guidelines.

Best regards, (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oxford Brookes University Logo.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Oxford Brookes University Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

JCM telescope[edit]

this article, on which you have edited, contains a statement re. the completion of scuba-2 in early 2008. this needs updating. is the detector online? thx.Toyokuni3 (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know.Billlion (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Palace_westminster_pano_corrected.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Palace_westminster_pano_corrected.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice work with electrical impedance tomography[edit]

Good work with the EIT article. I found it to be surprisingly informative and well-written given the relatively small number of editors who have given it attention. I did make a few fixups mostly to bring it into conformity with MoS. Robert K S (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


I think the URL in question is Whether it's any good as a source, I have no idea. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

higher-dimensional Möbius transformations[edit]

Hi Billion -- I've added a comment at Talk:Möbius_transformation#Higher_dimensions regarding higher-dimensional Möbius transformations. Joriki (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

4th floor Alan Turing[edit]

Hi Bill, the 4th floor is not just plant space, there is a kitchen, 3 large labs, clean room, shielded room, network hub room, server room, cleaners cupboard and a loo ;-) - All 'user space' so I think is worth including. Cheers, Ant Holloway.

Thanks, you are right my mistake. Is it documented somewhere?Billlion (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Fish at Lakes Aquarium Cumbria.jpg[edit]

My pleasure to help you illustrate your article. Thanks for the Flickr courtesy note. Computerjoe's talk 17:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your input at the SSEM article on the thorny issue of what arithmetic operations it implemented. I'm conscious that I may be too close to it to always be entirely objective, and perhaps sometimes too protective, but I was deeply unhappy about the recent addition. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope I added to the clarity. Its not clear to everyone that subtraction and conditional branching is enough so it could be explained a bit better.Billlion (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, and thanks once again for clarifying what I must admit I thought was obvious. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi, I'm posting this on your (and other members of the Maths Wikiproject) talk as we need editors who are knowledgeable about Mathematics to evaluate the following discussion and check out the editors and articles affected. Please follow the link below and comment if you can help.


Thankyou. Exxolon (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Please look at Radon transform[edit]

Hi. Could you please have a look over at Radon transform. There is an editor insistent upon adding another reference to the article, to a recent book by Gabor Herman. (This same editor, incidentally, is spamming the same reference over many related articles.) Initially I removed it because it already has enough references—many of which were presumably used in writing it, some were added awhile back by you I think. The editor then re-inserted the reference, claiming on my talk page that it was superior to the others (a dubious claim that I have replied to). At any rate, while I will certainly defend my decision to remove the reference, I'm ultimately not that invested in it one way or the other. An outside opinion would be helpful here. Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Radon transformBilllion (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Billlion! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3,300 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Doug Scott - Find sources: "Doug Scott" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR · free images · wikipedia library

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

math notation[edit]

Hello. This edit prompts some comments.

TeX is sophisticated. If you write 4 \mathrm{sup}_f A, it looks like this:

 4 \mathrm{sup}_f A\,

But if you write 4 \sup_f A, it looks like this:

 4 \sup_f A\,

The difference is not only that the ƒ appears directly under "sup", but also that spacing before and after "sup" is automatically provided according to standard style conventions (note the space between 4 and sup in the second case and the lack of such space in the first case), and in some contexts, the size gets adjusted according to standard usages. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Michael, that was a subtlety I missed.Billlion (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Billlion (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:CT of human thorax showing current paths for EIT.jpg[edit]


Thank you for uploading File:CT of human thorax showing current paths for EIT.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Tibetan naming conventions[edit]

A few months ago, I posted a new proposal for Tibetan naming conventions, i.e. conventions that can be used to determine the most appropriate titles for articles related to the Tibetan region. This came out of discussions about article titles on Talk:Qamdo and Talk:Lhoka (Shannan) Prefecture. I hope that discussions on the proposal's talk page will lead to consensus in favour of making these conventions official, but so far only a few editors have left comments. If you would be interested in taking a look at the proposed naming conventions and giving your opinion, I would definitely appreciate it. Thanks — Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 22:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Françoise Tisseur[edit]

Thanks for the changes you've made to the article. If you add a stub template to an article then it's a good idea to check the talk page to see what class the article was carrying. It was listed as a start-class. I've changed that to stub-class to avoid inconsistencies. It's worth making sure you check the talk page before making changes to articles. Thanks again for the edits, and keep up the good work. Fly by Night (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

  • This permission does not give you any special status or authority
  • Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
  • You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
  • If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 11:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
ThanksBilllion (talk) 13:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Mathematical physicists[edit]


for some strange reason, Jean Ginibre appears in the category under 'J' (and not under 'G'). Do you accidentally know how to fix this? (I am asking you since you created the category, I apologise if this is the completely wrong address).

Best, Sasha (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it with the Defaultsort template, have a look and see how I did that. Billlion (talk) 05:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thanks!Sasha (talk) 05:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that other article a POV fork?[edit]

Re 'Mongol invasions'. There are 2 POVs. The Tibetan religious historical tradition see negotiations with the Mongols from 1206 to 1251 as precluding invasion by an agreement between the Mongols as the Sa-skya religious authority. The essentially Sinocentric view cites a cavalry incursion that burnt two monasteries to the north of Lhasa and killed several hundred monks in 1240 as an 'invasion'. 34 years ago, Wylie showed these are just POVs simplying a period which, for the obscurity of testimonies, we know little about, and the misinformation is repeated in many secondary sources. But it is certain that there was no 'Mongol invasion' of Tibet (the whole ununified plateau) in the sense that there was a Mongol invasion of 19 other countries in that century. The 'main article' is no such thing. It cites a few sources, but is thinner in substantive detail than the History of Tibet section I was editing. A lot of these pages seem intent on establishing retroactively the modern Chinese case for sovereignty over Tibet (which it indeed now exercises) on the basis of (a)Mongols unified China (b)Tibet acceded to Mongol claims for submission (c)therefore China's claim to Tibet dates from these invents. On this principle, China's soverenty extends to Hunbgary and Baghdad. I'm not interested in POV battles. I'm interested in what the best academic intelligence says about the specific facts of any period, and the word 'invasion' here is inappropriate.Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I see your argument and it certainly has a lot of merit, but I think you should edit the main article first Mongol invasions of Tibet(especially change the title to Mongol incursions in to Tibet) even if it is a fairly poor atrticle, or at least have the debate on the talk page and then change History of Tibet to agree. As you say you will be up against editors who seem to advocate a view that supports the Chinese calim to soverenty over Tibet on that atricle as well. Perhaps citing academic articles that confirm at least that there are two points of view might be the way forward?Billlion (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Metal detector split tag[edit]

I am trying to clear up the backlog of split tags. Taking a quick look, I think the proposal to split the article was opposed and would therefore have removed the split tag. If you have a clear idea on what you want then I suggest that you do it, otherwise the split tag ought to go. It has been on rather a long time. regards Op47 (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we drop the split tag. I only know about certain non-controversial aspects of metal detectors and it needs some diplomacy and understanding to do the split well, so as to reduce rather than fuel edit wars. Billlion (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:The Stork stalactite at Treak Cavern.JPG[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Stork stalactite at Treak Cavern.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award 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/Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award 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 template from the top of the article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Akong Tulku Rinpoche throne.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Akong Tulku Rinpoche throne.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I have changed the tag to GFDL-self to make it unambiguous. I think the message is a bit strange as it seems to ask fro a source, as though copying images from other websites rather than making them oneself was the norm. Billlion (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Bach, Cotton, Lanczos, Schouten tensors[edit]

Hi Billlion. I noticed you are one of few active editors to have meaningfully edited the Cotton tensor article. I've recently made some major changes to the Lanczos tensor article. Perhaps you'd be interested in improving it or know someone else who is. Similar pages that could use some attention are Bach tensor and Schouten tensor. Teply (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Notifying user about missing file description(s) (bot - disable)[edit]

File:George Henry Livens cropped.jpg missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


Hi Billlion -- I posted the Adams Prize recipients category on CFD for discussion; per WP:OCAT#Award, award winners are usually better listed on the award pages rather than categorized. Please feel free to join the discussion; notice + link is posted below. --Lquilter (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 24[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

commons:File:Dr Akong Tulku Rinpoche.jpg[edit]

If you created this file, please mark it with {{own}} or something similar so we know who the author is. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (t c) 09:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok done 18:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Landweber iteration may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Landweber iteration may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Minor edits[edit]

This edit should not have been marked as minor. Anything that chops around the substantive text of the aricle is not minor, even if nothing new was added. Anything that another editor may want to revert (and this certainly met that category) is not minor. You seem to be doing this quite a lot: I did not have to look far into your history to find these example breaches of WP:MINOR: [1] (adding a visible tag), [2] (adding content - and by the way that edit has at least two spelling errors so other editors will certainly want to look at it), [3] (changing meaning), [4] (removing an external link). Please take the time to read the guideline. SpinningSpark 14:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The edit you referred to is the movement of one sentence to a different section. It is very much out of place. Please have a look at that edit, as I have reverted your revert. I think you are wrong in that case but you might be right in some of the others. Not that you are not immune to spelllling mistakies yourself (see above) ;-). Billlion (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not wrong, you are. First of all, please check the article history, I made several subsequent edits, all of which you reverted, some of which made completely separate contributions, and one of which fixed (properly) the issue you are complaining about. Your version on the other hand reads as if optical filters are used to filter cyclones from weather data. Do you actually know anything about filters? You cannot make an optical filter to filter week long periods because those frequencies are not within the optical band. Your edit is completely incompetent. I politely request that you self-revert it.
You also need to read WP:BRD. Redoing an edit that has been reverted is the beginnings of edit warring and is extremely poor behaviour for an editor that has been around as long as you.
The point about the spelling errors was not to beat you up for making them, but that you had marked the edit as minor so other editors who might otherwise have seen and corrected them will not look bcause of the minor mark. My spelling errors here are completely irrelevant and unimportant and it is rather churlish of you to point them out. Yours, on the other hand, are in article space and your first response should have been to hustle on over there and fix them rather than start an edit war with me. SpinningSpark 15:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Please read WP:MINOR "and rearrangements of text without modification of its content." I just moved a sentence. There is certainly no spelling mistake in moving a sentence. It is not an edit war and I do not like the tone your are adopting. Please feel free to move the sentence to somewhere where it might be better to mention optical filters, perhaps it deserves another section. Billlion (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I have read WP:MINOR and fully understand it. You added the word "and" (as well as adding the sentence to an entirely inappropriate paraagraph). That has made a crucial difference to the meaning of the whole paragraph and is thus NOT a minor edit. From WP:MINOR " any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit concerns a single word". I already did move the sentence you object to somewhere else but YOU REVERTED ME, along with some additional explanation. That might well explain some of my tone you don't like. Once again, please CHECK THE EDIT HISTORY and self-revert. Alternatively, if you have some objection to this version of the article, please explain what it is on the talk page. SpinningSpark 18:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
...and besides that, you were wrong to restore your version without discussion after you were reverted however right you are. SpinningSpark 18:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Photo of Dave[edit]

Thanks for making a good start with David Broomhead's article. Do you have a photo that we could use?- ideally something for which you have the rights, and we could add to WP:COMMONS. Also, other than his home-page and the two given, do you know of any sources we could use to expand the article? U+003F? 22:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

We are working on it. There will be some official obituaries published and they will serve as authoritative sources, and we will see if we can find a photo which we can make open. Billlion (talk) 06:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I added a couple of photos to the commons. Let me know if you have any others, especially from his younger years. Do you know if the school will be releasing an obituary? U+003F? 12:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Mark Muldoon wrote a nice obituary that just came out in the LMS newsletter.Billlion (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeshe Losal[edit]

Hi there. I've tidied up and hopefully fixed the cut and paste issue. The article (along with its talk page) is now at Yeshe Losal per the style guide. Cheers,  Philg88 talk 08:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help User:Philg88. I will go back to the Talk and try to explain the article naming style guide.Billlion (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Technika SH-Z625 for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Technika SH-Z625 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/Technika SH-Z625 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. Ubcule (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)