# User talk:Forderud

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Oleg Alexandrov 01:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

## Kalman filter derivation

There are real problems with your text for the derivation of the Kalman filter, but when I tried to fix them, you reverted all my changes, saying that they were inaccurate. One part I know was inaccurate (and indeed had marked on my printouts to fix before your changes went in): I referred to "estimated state matrix" where what I meant was "estimated state vector", and I didn't make it clear that it was the sum of the squares of the error that was to be minimized.

You reverted all my changes to the original text, so I'm guessing there must have been more serious problems than that. Could you outline them for me? Thanks!

My consern with your rewrite was that you turned the text into an introduction to stochastic estimation (in general) by introducing sentences like we must define precisely what we mean by "best possible estimate". The Kalman article in not the place to describe what MMSE is. However, I agree with you in that the section definetely needs to be rephrased.
What about stating that the method is based on an MMSE solution to the (quadratic) ${\displaystyle E\{{\textbf {e}}_{k|k}{\textbf {e}}_{k|k}^{T}\}}$ error metric?
Please don't take this personally. My intension was only to make the article appear more like a research paper introduction to Kalman would have been. --Fredrik Orderud 09:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK, that's very helpful. I've re-worded in accordance with this advice, and also used var to simplify the equations. I hope I haven't done anything that seems disastrous to you! — ciphergoth 11:53, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

## Capital letters for random variables

Hello. Standard usage in my experience is that random variables are denoted by capital letters like X, and corresponding lower-case letters used for the dummies in density functions and CDFs and such expressions as

Pr(X > x)
fX(x) = e−x (capital in the subscript, lower-case in parentheses, for obvious reasons)

So why did you change the RVs in covariance matrix to lower-case? Michael Hardy 21:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you when dealing with scalar statistics. However, when dealing with "vector statistics" is is common pracise to denote scalars normal, vectors boldface and matrices capitalized to help distinguish between them. Please respond again if you still disagree, and I'll change the notation back.--Fredrik Orderud 22:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

## Kalman filter: non-correlation of noise variables

If you have a moment free, I'd appreciate your guidance in a discussion I'm having with User:Chrislloyd on Talk:Kalman filter#non-correlation_of_noise_variables about whether uncorrelation of gaussian variables implies independence. One of us is very confused and wrong, and would benefit from the knowledge of one such as yourself. Thanks! — ciphergoth 20:18, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

You can now find my answer in the Kalman talk-page. It's a very interesting discussion you've got :) --Fredrik Orderud 21:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

## Correlation matrix?

In signal processing, the correlation matrix of a vector x is denoted
${\displaystyle {\textbf {R}}_{x}=E[{\textbf {x}}{\textbf {x}}^{\top }]}$,
and the covariance matrix is denoted
${\displaystyle {\textbf {C}}_{x}=E[({\textbf {x}}-E[{\textbf {x}}])({\textbf {\textbf {x}}}-E[{\textbf {x}}])^{\top }]}$
for real signals.

You've got to be kidding. That the difference between covariance and correlation is that in the former you don't subtract the average, is very strange. The standard is that the covariance divided by the product of the two standard deviations is the correlation. Michael Hardy 20:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not kidding! Just look at p.150 at Discrete Random Signals and Statistical Signal Processing by C. Therrien. This book is described as a "Reference Text" in 6.432 Stochastic Processes, Detection, and Estimation at your own universiy (MIT). This course also uses the same definition for correlation (problem 7.7 b). I fully acknowledge that this definision is inconsistent with the ordinary definition of "correlation", and therefore put it in a "signal processing" section. --Fredrik Orderud 20:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

## Matrix differentiation

Hi Frederik. I left you a message on Talk:Matrix differentiation. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov 00:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The article is now renamed to Matrix calculus. --Fredrik Orderud 13:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

## Um...

It's clear that that was just vandalism. In cases such as this you just revert back to the last good version. Not sure why you put the stub notice at the top either, as they go at the bottom of the article. CryptoDerk 17:24, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Did you read the external link that the person provided? The Watley Review is dedicated to the production of articles completely without journalistic merit or factual basis, as this would entail leaving our chairs or actually working. Names, places and events are generally fictitious, except for public figures about which we may have heard something down at the pub. All contents are intended as parody and should be construed as such. When someone adds "facts" to an article and references them with a parody site, I consider that vandalism. CryptoDerk 17:42, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry. I didn't notice your removal of the links and vandalized content when reverting. I thought you only removed the "disputed" tag. Thanks a lot for you help! --Fredrik Orderud 17:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

## Categories for Deletion

• Hi, I noticed you marked Category:Numerical programming systems for deletion but never added it to WP:CFD. I've removed the tag for now. If you definitely wanted to delete this category, please make sure you complete both parts of the procedure. Thanks! --Kbdank71 17:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

## Category:Curves

Hi Orderud. As I think you saw, I reverted some of your edits. I think the numerical analysis category is not so reduntant in places. Also, when one thinks of the Category:Curves, the first thing which comes to one's mind is that this is geometry, not numerical analysis.

Thus, putting Category:Curves in Category:Numerical analysis, then removing the latter from a bunch of articles which are about numerical analysis, I think was not right.

However, in retrospect, I think it was not right to revert your edits so fast (I guess I am in a hurry right now). After I already did that, another idea came to my mind. Category:Curves should not be in Category:Numerical analysis. Rather, a new Category:Splines needs to be created, which should be in the categories of curves, numerical analysis, and computer graphics. Then, the articles about splines which are now in Category:Curves and Category:Numerical analysis could be put in the new category instead. What do you think?

Again, I am sorry for my rush edits. I should have considered this option before. Oleg Alexandrov 04:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My intention by recategorization of spline-articles was to reduce the size of the numerical analysis and computer graphics categories, which I think are unneccesarily large. A more precise categorization would reduce this problem.
I totally agree in that a "Splines" category is better for spline-related content than my attemt to use the "Curve" category. I've therefore just created Category:Splines, and moved the first 10 spline related articles to this category. --Fredrik Orderud 10:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey Fredrik, good work! Thanks! Oleg Alexandrov 15:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BTW, are you aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics? That, and its talk page are where the mathematicians gather to discuss all math related issues. There is also a list of participants to sign on. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov 15:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Element densities in infoboxes

We, at the Wikiproject Elements, have noticed your recent edits to the infoboxes of helium and hydrogen. We were wondering your source for the data and if it is reliable. If it is, we would be interesting in expanding it to all emement articles. Please leave us a comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements or even my talk page. --metta, The Sunborn 3 July 2005 23:43 (UTC)

Perhaps next time you should consult the oracle... sorry Google. :) AlistairMcMillan 23:21, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

## A Norwegian as well, I presume?

Hi; welcome! I hope it's OK if I (re)add you to the WKPns in Norway cat---I think it's a patently Good Thing™ to have us Norwegians listed in that cat in addition to any 'regional' ones, so as to keep the overall picture. --Wernher 14:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

That's ok :) --Fredrik Orderud 14:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I've changed my mind; and do now disagree with you. I think membership in Category:Wikipedians in Norway is unneccesary for members in Category:Wikipedians in Trondheim, as I oppose redundant categorization. --Fredrik Orderud 02:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

## Science pearls

Hello,

Since you contributed in the past to the publications’ lists, I thought that you might be interested in this new project. I’ll be glad if you will continue contributing. Thanks,APH 09:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

## Video for Windows

removing cat:windows software, since this is a library, and not user software

(1) Video for Windows is not just libraries, the actual Media Player application was only distributed as part of Video for Windows. (2) The cat is "Windows software" not "Windows user software". If the cat is only for user software it should say so somewhere. AlistairMcMillan 15:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You might be right there, but isn't Category:Microsoft software still sufficient categorization for Video for Windows? --Fredrik Orderud 15:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

## Wikibooks:Programming:MS Visual Studio

PANIC: I've posted a message for you in [Wikibooks user talk page], txs...

## Please comment on the current Math Collaboration of the Week

Hello Orderud - since you listed statistics as an interest in your user talk, I was hoping you could lend your expertise to the current Mathematics Collaboration of the Week: Multiple Comparisons. Obviously it's a interesting and important topic. We are also in the midst of a discussion as to the distinction between multiple comparisons and multiple testing. Your thoughts would be much appreciated. Let's get a math article up on the front page! Thanks for any help. Debivort 10:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

## It's the thought that counts

Yeah, voting closed just yesterday on my RfA, but thanks for the sentiment! -lethe talk + 01:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed by an automated bot. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. If you feel you have received this notice in error, please contact the bot owner // Tawkerbot2 20:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

## Kalman and HMM

Your revert covers only some of Alan1507's edits. this diff covers the changes between before he started editing and the current version. — ciphergoth 22:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I know. The previous edits by Alan1507 didn't look that bad, so I only reverted the last one where he replaced "Markov chain" with "graphical model". --Fredrik Orderud 22:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the reformating of the equations. I've looked in the Latex Help section but I could not find how to realign the text on the right of the brace. I will keep you changes in my files.

Pierre_cb 13:38 GMT 2006-05-16

Look at m:Help:Formula for a great cheat sheet for latex math :-) --Fredrik Orderud 13:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

## Inferring backwards?

A question I asked on Talk:Kalman filter but didn't get a very good answer; I hope you don't mind me asking you directly. A Kalman model will use today's observation to estimate today's state. What do you use when you want to use today's observation (in combination with those from the past) to improve your estimate of yesterday's state? There are definitely well-understood techniques that use both past and future information together; I just don't know how to look for them because I don't know what they're called. Thanks! — ciphergoth 10:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

You have put a "Clean up" sign on my Weather radar article in May 2006, before it was completly finished. Since then, I added lot of stuff and reorganized. Some people have added things too. I would like to know want you think of it now and how to get this sign off. Pierre cb 05:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The article sure looks a lot better now, so you can probably remove the "cleanup" tag at the top of the article. --Fredrik Orderud 12:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

## Cleanup on Automatically_Tuned_Linear_Algebra_Software

I have been working to cleanup Automatically_Tuned_Linear_Algebra_Software. I see that you have edited that page in the past. If you would be so good as to check out the latest version and contribute to or comment on the article, it would be most appreciated. Cheers, -- Jake 19:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

## Image:Visual studio includedirectories.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Visual studio includedirectories.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you.

## Image:Visual studio librarydirectories.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Visual studio librarydirectories.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you.

## Image:Visual studio additionaldependencies.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Visual studio additionaldependencies.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you.

## Image:Visual studio runtimelibrary.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Visual studio runtimelibrary.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you.

## Image tagging for Image:Bland-Altman-Plot.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Bland-Altman-Plot.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

## Little context in Miscellaneous

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Miscellaneous, by Saberwyn (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Miscellaneous is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Miscellaneous, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 23:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

## Interview with Åse Kleveland

The English Wikinews is going to be organizing an interview with the former Norwegian Culture Minister Åse Kleveland. She was also the head of the Swedish Film Institute and is now the chairwoman of the Norwegian Humanist Association. I am asking Wikipedians from all of the Scandinavian languages to contribute questions to her upcoming interview with Wikinews in Oslo. The page is here; please leave questions there and comments to me either on my en.wikinews talk page or my en.wikipedia talk page. Thank you very much! Mike H. Fierce! 02:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

## Wikimania 2010 could be coming to Stockholm!

I'm leaving you a note as you may be interested in this opportunity.

People from all six Nordic Wiki-communities (sv, no, nn, fi, da and is) are coordinating a bid for Wikimania 2010 in Stockholm. I'm sending you a message to let you know that this is occurring, and over the next few months we're looking for community support to make sure this happens! See the bid page on meta and if you like such an idea, please sign the "supporters" list at the bottom. Tack (or takk), and have a wonderful day! Mike H. Fierce! 11:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

## AfD nomination of List of computer vision conferences

I have nominated List of computer vision conferences, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of computer vision conferences. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

## Articles for deletion nomination of TeXnicCenter

I have nominated TeXnicCenter, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TeXnicCenter. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

## Articles for deletion nomination of Copernic Desktop Search

I have nominated Copernic Desktop Search, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copernic Desktop Search. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

## Speedy deletion nomination of Copernic Desktop Search

A tag has been placed on Copernic Desktop Search, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding `{{hangon}}` to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

## Derivation of the optimal Kalman filter gain - five years later :-)

Hi Orderud,

Back in 2005 you more or less wrote the section Kalman filter#Deriving the Kalman gain. I have some concerns about a mismatch between the physical units used in that derivation as described here Talk:Kalman filter#Unit mismatch in the Kalman gain derivation section. As the original author of that section I thought you maybe wanted to be informed about this, and I would be interested in hearing your view about me feeling a little uneasy about the derivation. As I understand the present derivation is how Kalman originally did it. Best wishes, --Slaunger (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

## Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was `true`. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to `false` in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

## Proposed deletion of FinkCommander

The article FinkCommander has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable software, with no updates in 6 years. No references.

While all 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. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

## Smart pointer

You have utterly destroyed the "Concurrency guarantees" section by repeatedly replacing accurate information with nonsense. Smart pointer instances are not thread-safe. The atomic operations are exceptions to that rule, not the reason that smart pointers are thread-safe (again, they're not). The previous contributor rightly indicated that only the "reference count" is protected and not the referenced object, which you changed to say that it only protects the "smart pointers", but that was false, and it got worse from then on because of the spurious rationale that was added. I was tempted to revert your reversal by saying that accuracy trumps readability, but I'll let somebody else do that, and in the meantime I'll just remove what's wrong. RFST (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that I've degraded the smart pointer article. That was never my intent. Rather, my intent was to clarify that smart-pointer objects (containing both pointer value and reference-count) are thread-safe, whereas the object being pointed to needs to be protected separately. I even added a reference to the C++ standard as proof (with the possible exception of non-standard interfaces and objects passed as 2nd/3rd/4th etc. argument). I'm surprised that you've removed this reference, since it was the only source of objective evidence in the section. I would have preferred if you instead could have improved or extended the reference if you feel that there was something wrong with it.
Based on your "Smart pointer instances are not thread-safe" reasoning, it appears to me like you disagree with the C++ standard section that I referenced (C++11 standard N3337, 20.7.2.5 shared_ptr atomic access [1]). Could you please comment on this? Fredrik Orderud (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
My first edit (in two parts) was meant to provide the necessary information. In the second edit, I didn't want to go into an undo war (or whatever it's called on Wikipedia), so I removed the reference not because I somehow "disagree" with it in any way (I don't) but because it was misused (as described above); to repeat: the atomic operations are exceptions to the rule that smart pointers must be protected like any other object, not a reason that they would be thread-safe (again, they're not). If an object contains a shared_ptr (just to paint the scenario), and multiple threads access the object and hence the shared_ptr, access to that shared_ptr must be protected just as for any other object, unless access is purely in terms of the limited set of atomic functions as specified in the Standard ("Concurrent access to a shared_ptr object from multiple threads does not introduce a data race if the access is done exclusively via the functions in this section and the instance is passed as their first argument."). You can read more about "Thread safety" (or lack thereof) for shared_ptr in boost (please do so at this point), the nursery of several new C++11 features, but which BTW does not seem to have the atomic functions. Unfortunately, even if you yourself have written code that was never tripped up by not respecting these requirements, it may still be, or it may not be portable, and you should probably use a specialised tool to trigger the timing conditions that may make the problem manifest at testing time instead of perhaps in the field, and even then such tools are constrained by current implementation and current hardware. RFST (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm already familiar with Boost, including boost::shared_ptr. I've contributed several patches to the project, am participating on the boost::thread mailing list and have initiated a SourceForge project for distributed precompiled boost binaries. I therefore think it would be more constructive if you could keep to a less offensive tone.
That said, I think I understand you point. Could it e.g. be an idea to add boost::shared_ptr thread safety as a reference (until we find a std::shared_ptr reference)? Fredrik Orderud (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the offensive start (I was somewhat annoyed), but what I was seeing is somebody who has a particular understanding of something that happens to be wrong but who still acts repeatedly as if he simply knows better. I'm not looking at reputation or whatever (although if you've contributed patches to boost this seems like a strange mistake to make), I'm trying to get somewhere without spending too much time on it. Anyway, I'm glad about the progress. Strictly speaking, the boost documentation is not entirely relevant without evidence about how close std::shared_ptr still is to boost::shared_ptr, but if presented without extraneous claims it might help. The real confirmation is still that very section about atomic functions, which, instead of explaining why shared_ptr is thread-safe (which it is not), implies in a roundabout way that all other access methods may in fact "introduce a data race" and are therefore not thread-safe. BTW, I've experienced the issues up close when I implemented my own shared_ptr (using boost's was not an option). RFST (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Now, I've added the boost::shared_ptr thread safety documentation as reference (together with a disclaimer stating that it's doesn't formally cover std::shared_ptr). Hope that this is ok for you. Fredrik Orderud (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Minimalist information is better than misinformation, and those who have a legitimate use for the additional functionality in C++11 will probably be consulting other sources anyway, so this seems acceptable. RFST (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

## June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Acyclic dependencies principle 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
• * Dependencies stated in the build system (e.g. <code>dependency</code> tags in Maven configuration.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed! Fredrik Orderud (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

==speedy==Speedy deletion applies only for the reasons given in WP:CSD:A7. That an article in mainspace is incomplete and unsourced is not among them. In fact, it's not necessarily a reason for regular deletion, unless it is unsourceable. I therefore declined your request for speedy deletion of Medical integration environment. G13 applies only to AfC pages. DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Linker.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

## Visual C++ RTM version numbers

I've seen the RTM version numbers switch back and forth a few times over the past few months, almost like a slow motion edit war. I haven't been able to Google anything definitive, but I'm wondering whether the confusion is version numbers for Visual C++ vs. Visual Studio? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmalak (talkcontribs) 22:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm just as surprised by the edit war myself. To improve the situation, I've just added a link to a screenshot of the Visual Studio 2012 about dialog. Hopefully, this should prevent any further edits back & forth. Fredrik Orderud (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
What you showing is the about dialog of Visual Studio. The article and therefor the versions numbers are for Visual C++ and that version number for 2012 is 17.*. Compare the version numbers of the other versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConfusedSushi (talkcontribs) 13:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

## Orphaned non-free image File:Visual Studio 2012 about dialog.png

Thanks for uploading File:Visual Studio 2012 about dialog.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The image was in fact already referred to in the Visual C++ article. The only problem was that I used regular "internet-links" for the image, which is not detected by the "where used" logic in Wikipedia. This has now been improved by replacing the "internet-link" with an equivalent "wiki-link". I hope this satisfies your wishes. Fredrik Orderud (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

## Nomination of Bayes++ for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bayes++ 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/Bayes++ 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. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

## Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Circle sampling.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

## Undoing my revert

I reverted you here but realized I had misread your sentence and have undone my revert. My apologies. Msnicki (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• No problem! :-) Thank you for keeping an eye on the article. Fredrik Orderud (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

## Nomination of DreamSpark Premium for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article DreamSpark Premium 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/DreamSpark Premium 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. ― 04:27, 19 March 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) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)