User talk:Gronk Oz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New editor delivery.png The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar

A new editor on the right path
Because you have made many spot-on edits and other contributions in just a couple of months; your user page is cool--I love the bit about human behavior--so true!; you gave me a great suggestion at the Teahouse; and you have contributed to an article involving my ancestral clan - MacQuarrie (spelling varies). I took that as a Jungian synchronicity thing. Cheers! - Mark D Worthen PsyD 12:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

probably in wrong spot but...[edit]

Why did you delete my question on teahouse? --DangerousJXD (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

DangerousJXD I am sorry; I did not delete your question intentionally. If I did it accidentally, then you have my profound apologies.
The situation was this: another user had left a question which overlapped with the Teahouse headings, so I edited the whole page (normally I would just edit one section at a time). When I went to save my changes, there was an edit conflict - that was probably you asking your question. I thought I had recovered all the input, but perhaps I missed yours in the conflicting changes. My fault completely.
I see that you asked your question again, which is great - the Teahouse is a tremendous resource which has helped me a lot and I hope I didn't put you off using it. Did you get the answers you needed? If not, I can help with those ones. --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. Everyone is so nice on Wikipedia! You deserve a cookie. --DangerousJXD (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 13:17, Sunday, October 4, 2015 (UTC)

Get Help
About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Anatomy Wikiproject![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:

Sobo 1909 589.png
  • Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
  • You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing anatomy articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
  • We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
  • Lastly, why not try and strive to create a good article! Anatomical articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages!

Thanks for your points on List of medical mnemonics. If you happen to be surfing past any more anatomy-related articles, a very untended lot, please feel free to leave a message on the talk page, make improvements, or contact us at WP:ANATOMY! Cheers, --LT910001 (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to DYK[edit]

Hello, Gronk Oz. New DYK nominations have to have their own individual templates and then transcluded to the main nominations page (like below). We created that template for you by copying and pasting what you had left onto a template. Here's hoping you submit more nominations to DYK. But next time you do, just go to Template talk:Did you know:To nominate an article. Then input the article title in the blank where it says "Your Article Title", and click Create Nomination. It then takes you to a page where you input the rest. After you've created the template, transcluding it is simple. If you open this thread I'm typing into your edit window, you'll see how to do the transclusion. I've transcluded the nomination template here on your talk page. Good luck, and thank you for contributing to DYK. — Maile (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Maile66 (talk · contribs), you are a truly wonderful human being. You have no idea how grateful I am for your assistance with this. Since I wrote the article, I have spent two days trying to penetrate the convoluted, contradictory instructions for DYK. In the end, I chose to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Did you know/Nomination but obviously they were not the right ones. Now that I know which instructions are the right ones, it's all smooth sailing from here on! Thank you so very much! --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Astronomical Society of New South Wales[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 09:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

BLP expansion[edit]

Hi, I suggest you familiarize yourself with two other pages, Wikipedia:Did you know (the basic rules) and Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines. On neither of these pages is the 2x BLP rule spelled out, but in my years of working on DYK, I can tell you that other experienced editors always point out that the BLP must have absolutely no refs to qualify for the 2x expansion. Even an external link counts as a ref. Good luck, Yoninah (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Yoninah - I will read up on those. As a relative newbie, it is frustrating to keep bumping into all these conflicting instructions and rules, so I appreciate you taking the time to clarify it for me. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I've been around since 2005 so hardly a newbie, but I share your frustration with policies and processes. There's loads of them, they often poorly documented, and they are also constantly changing. So don't take it personally. We are all travelling in the same leaky boat! :-) Kerry (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Readable page size[edit]

Hi again. When we calculate page size, we don't look at the byte totals, but at character counts. I paste the text (excluding headers, footnotes, charts, text boxes, and captions) into this tool to get the character count and figure out 5x expansions. Best, Yoninah (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Cute grey kitten.jpg

Thanks for the work you are doing on the demographics!

Kerry (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Flim-Flam![edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Flim-Flam! at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Edwardx (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

A cookie as promised.[edit]

Choco chip cookie.png Here you go. :) DangerousJXD (talk) 07:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
I just wanted to give be Barnstar because you have been a friendly Wikipedian (is that right?) to me. Congrats Gronk Oz! DangerousJXD (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Astronomical Society of Victoria) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Astronomical Society of Victoria, Gronk Oz!

Wikipedia editor Grand'mere Eugene just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Well done. Sorry to see that 2 photos were deleted from commons for lack of OTRS permission.

To reply, leave a comment on Grand'mere Eugene's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

DYK for Maynard (broadcaster)[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Bart Bok[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Flim-Flam![edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


Ilc 9yr moll4096.png You've been invited to be part of WikiProject Cosmology

Hello. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been analyzed and it seems that this new Wikiproject would be interesting to you. I hope you can contribute to it by expanding the main page and later start editing the articles in its scope. Make sure to check out the Talk page for more information! Cheers

Tetra quark (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you![edit]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG Thanks for the good advice. Darknipples (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Your "not-quite-beginner's" way of looking at things and giving advice at the Teahouse are always very helpful to a lot of new editors. Thank you for your work! :) w.carter-Talk 09:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


Please don't add double headers to people talk pages, its irritating William M. Connolley (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

William M. Connolley - I agree and I apologize. I included one heading, and then the transcluded template added another one automatically. Next time I will know better.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Innsbrucker Hütte[edit]

Please try not to be so anxious getting stuff deleted. There is really no hurry. Consider taking it to AFD and making a good case for why you want it deleted. --Hegvald (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, @Hegvald: - I allowed the other editor's personal insults and refusal to follow the process and discuss matters to get under my skin. And that is not the best way to be.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@Hegvald: - I notice that you also removed the Unreferenced tag from this article. It has no references at all, so can you explain why you removed it? --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't notice it when I undid your speedy edit. Anyway, please give the article a week or so and see what happens. Even then, I think you should consider whether the content isn't mergeable somewhere (Habicht?) before trying to get it deleted. Unless one is dealing with a BLP making some horrible accusation against some person (or something of that sort), there is hardly ever any hurry to delete a page. --Hegvald (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that, @Hegvald:. Another editor has tagged the article in the meantime, so as you suggest, I will withdraw for a while. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion[edit]

I have noticed that you may be a little too eager to give nominations for speedy deletion:

  • You nominated G K Bharad Institute of Engineering under A7, but A7 explicitly excludes educational institutions. (Don’t feel bad: I’ve made the same mistake, and an admin bought your nomination.)
  • You nominated Innsbrucker Hütte under A7 and G12. In the first place I don’t see anything the least bit promotional in the article. And from your comments, you seem to think that references are needed—not so: any credible indication of significance is enough. So far the article doesn’t have much indication of significance; to my mind the closest thing is that it is a station on the Stubai Hohenweg, and even that link was not in the version that you nominated.

BTW, I appreciate your work in the Teahouse. —teb728 t c 08:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, TEB728 - it is hard to get feedback on this sort of thing so I do appreciate it. Especially that you did so without biting my head off. I am still trying to get the numerous strategies really clear in my head for when I find what appears to be a problem: when to tag speedy deletion, or to add a tag like Notability, or start the AfD process. And the subtleties of the codes will take more study; maybe I need to print them out and stick them up on my wall (it's an old-school approach I know, but it's always worked for me). So I will slow down a lot, take a couple of deep breaths, check the code's definition and give more benefit of the doubt before adding those tags in future.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in Teahouse[edit]

Thanks for answering my question in the Teahouse :) SerieLover (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion: Vivaldi Partners Group[edit]

Hi, you called me out as a single-issue user on the Vivaldi Partners Group page. To clarify, I have edited articles before, but without a user - I needed a username to start an article. Sam_Milne (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2015 (GMT)

Thanks for clarifying that, Sam milne. I have put a copy of your message onto the article's Talk page so it is visible to other editors involved in the discussion. --Gronk Oz (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Dupree and Asa Gray[edit]

I've got the Peters hook under 200 now. Take a look at Asa Gray. I've used the the Dupree book (and other sources) to vastly improve Asa Gray. I have a bit more to do. It was when I was reading Dupree yesterday that I came across the fascinating story of Peters and decided make the Peters article. Thanks for the DYK review. HalfGig talk 13:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, HalfGig - the Asa Gray page looks great, and the Dupree book certainly fills out a lot of the information there. I have given my approval for the DYK, but another editor might always disagree so keep watching it for other comments. Good luck! --Gronk Oz (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Someone brought up what I think is a minor point. Please revisit. HalfGig talk 19:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, Gronk Oz. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by John from Idegon (talk) 07:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.
and here's what I can offer about your article. Let me preface this by saying I don't write bios, I live north of the equator and all I know about astronomy is it is not astrology. That being said:
  1. You need to shorten the lede. It should only briefly summarize the most important parts of the article.
  2. Parts of it read like a CV. I'd lose the lists of publications and of positions and only discuss the most important in prose.
  3. Parts, especially the personal stuff, reads like an essay. Frankly, it makes me wonder if you may possibly have a close connection to the subject. You should rewrite it in a dryer tone.
  4. Lastly, lose the Twitter link. We don't put links to social media in external links sections.

You may want to contact the reviewing editor to see if he has any further advice. John from Idegon (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Brlliant, thanks for that, John from Idegon. I will work on those points. To set your mind at ease, I do not have a relationship with the subject. I met him just once very briefly after a public talk he gave. The reason that the personal material probably sounds "like an essay" is that most of it was sourced from a single audio interview he gave.
I am a bit puzzled by your mention of a "list of publications", because I used to have one but I removed it before publishing the article. Now there is a text description of how many publications he has and the citations of those, along with the associated recognitions as a "high citation" researcher. There is the list of awards; is that what you meant?
I did also leave a message on the Talk page of the user who added the WikiProject boxes, assuming they might have been the one who did the review; I am looking forward to their input as well.
Once again, thanks - it is frustrating to have nothing to show were the problems are, and your response really helps!--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Gronk Oz. I read the article too, and I have some additional comments. Information in the article should not be cited back to sources created by the subject himself, except, sparingly, to mundane facts such as where he went to high school or some such, and only then temporarily until a reliable independent source can be found. Words he has written or spoken tell what he believed was important about himself and his work - but that it not what is needed in an encyclopedia article. Instead what should be included is a summary of facts about him that professional writers or experts thought important enough to be published, and with which their editors agreed after careful checking for error. Otherwise, what we have is a memoir or a tribute. Independently published interviews can be used as references, but only the words of the interviewer are considered to be reliable and independent, since the words of the interviewee are usually written verbatim without fact-checking and often contain unsubstantiated opinion. I hope that you will continue to adjust the article text with this in mind, taking into account as well John from Idegon's excellent advice.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much for taking the time to send those comments, Anne Delong. I have admit it was something I struggled with, since scientists generally publish their work and subsequent work cites it, but does not generally write about it at length - that is something that is done more for a lay audience. Even the interview was mostly a question-and-answer format, so not much help. Ah, it seems that I have so much still to learn; thank you for helping me along the process.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
You are right, Gronk Oz, that many journal articles cite another researcher's work with only a brief mention. However, if a particular scientist's work is considered important outside of his or her narrow group of associates, someone will write about it in a magazine ([1]), or the topic will be covered in a book ([2])([3]) or there will be a column about him in a newspaper ([4]), etc. By the way, YouTube is not considered a reliable publication.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Warrick Couch[edit]

Harrias talk 09:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For your excellent work on Warrick Couch Theroadislong (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Warrick Couch[edit]

The reason I gave it a C rather than a B was that it reads like a puff piece, not as a balanced article. Of course it has always been questionable whether Wikipedia should have articles on living people, because career objectives conflict with the search for knowledge.--Grahame (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, Grahamec. I appreciate the irony that even for a scientist, whose career is all about the search for knowledge, one can still say that "career objectives conflict with the search for knowledge". I will re-examine how I write biographies in light of your comments, and I will review some of the more highly-rated biographical articles to get a better understanding of the distinction. Thanks again for your guidance.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, Gronk Oz. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by Yunshui  13:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.


Great Answer Badge Great Answer Badge
Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum.

A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
Hey. You gave somebody at the Teahouse a terrific answer so take this badge! Great work!
DangerousJXD (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Person data[edit]

Hi Gronk, Thanks for ypur contribution to Yazıcıoğlu Ali. However I moved the title . Although the text is basicly the same, the title now is about a book rather than a person. Do we still need person data? Cheers Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention, Nedim Ardoğa. You are quite right; I have removed the Persondata from Selçukname.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Congrats... You gave an awesome answer in the Teahouse![edit]

Great Answer Badge Great Answer Badge
Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum.

A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
I've had the same question about how to purge page. I appreciate your answer in the time that you took to make it.
  Bfpage |leave a message  22:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for thanks[edit]

Hello Gronk Oz, you sent me a "thanks" for my comment in the Teahouse (Revision as of 14:09, 4 April 2015) on a question by Maxim Pouska. Thanks for your thanks :-).

The reason for my comment was that it took me a few minutes to understand the question posted by Maxim Pouska. Judging from his formulations he clearly is a native German speaker, and I needed my knowledge of German to help me understand his English. I got the feeling that English readers unfamiliar with German might have more trouble than me understanding his question, so I stepped in and interposed a clarification (of what I suspect to be his intended meaning).

I see on your user page that you have strong experience and background in both Mathematics and Computer Science. (Myself, I'm a computer programmer with MSc Electrical Engineering background.) As I wrote in another section in the Teahouse, I'm currently considering starting a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics about changing the title of the article Montgomery reduction (the article is about a certain method for fast multiplication). Do your interests include algorithms for fast arithmetic?, and would you by any chance be willing to look over my proposal for the renaming of that article? If and when I actually get to posting on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics, then can I alert you and invite you to look over my renaming proposal and maybe give your opinion? (Feel free to decline if your current package of interests has too little overlap with the Montgomery subject.)

With best regards, MRaccoon (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, MRaccoon. When I saw your Teahouse question about Montgomery reduction, I was struck by how thoughtful and well-considered it was, both technically and in terms of the Wikipedia community standards - and how well you expressed those thoughts. I am not a very experienced editor myself and I thought it best to let somebody give a more informed answer to your question, so as the old saying goes, "drawing on my command of the English language, I said nothing." Then when I saw you offering to help another editor, I had to do something to acknowledge that you're on the right path.
As for the article in question, I started reading it and now I am starting to develop an interest in the topic. (This is the danger of Wikipedia!) So yes, I would be happy to look over the proposal and make comments, although this is not my area of expertise. Also, keep in mind that as well as renaming an article, there is also the possibility of using a "redirection". For example of a redirection, the "Anglo Australian Observatory" was renamed as the "Australian Astronomical Observatory". But many people still use the old name, so if they use either name they will end up at the same article: there is a redirect from the old name to the new one. I look forward to getting my teeth into some mathematics again; it has been too long! --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Gronk Oz, thank you for your very polite reply.
One thing that caused me to write in response to your thanks was your (to me) extremely likable sentence "Human behaviour fascinates, confuses and scares me in pretty much equal degrees." on your user page. I'm not sure whether with the following question I'm overstepping the bounds of discretion, but are you familiar with MBTI, and could my feeling be correct that in that system of classification of "psychological" preferences you are in the same category as I am, namely INTP? Please ignore this if you do not like to publish that information.
Many thanks for your volunteering to give feedback on my (future) proposal regarding the Montgomery reduction article. That would be very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MRaccoon (talkcontribs) 16:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
On the Montgomery thing, I am constantly in doubt myself whether I really have time for it. I have a feeling of getting drawn into it whether I like or not. The problem is that I am pretty sure that I could make improvements to the explanation of Montgomery multiplication in the Montgomery reduction article. My main trouble is finding a way to limit the time I put into it. I am pretty sure that in the end, writing a separate and completely new explanation of Montgomery multiplication (e.g. on a webpage of my own) would cost me less time than improving the Wikipedia article -- considering all the interaction and discussion involved in editing the Wikipedia article (which interaction and discussion I obviously believe to be necessarily inherent in a group project like Wikipedia). However, Wikipedia has in the past been of great use to me, and improving the Montgomery reduction article seemed like a way in which I could partly pay back and do something in return.
So my goal would be to try at first to make a few few small changes in the Montgomery reduction article. I already outlined the main changes I would like to make in Talk:Montgomery_reduction#Proposal:_Change_article_title_to_.22Montgomery_multiplication.22 (but I will post a better-formulated proposal on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics).
(By the way: I understood that with a rename, the redirection is always created as well, either automatically or as a standard procedure. Is that correct?)
Please correct me if I am wrong, but my impression was that a redirection would not suffice for the improvement I am envisaging. Namely, the "rename" I will be proposing doesn't include only changing the article title, but also the header text of the article (I mean the brief introductory text before the Table of Contents -- what is the technical term for it?). What I would like to do is to clearly write there that the main topic of the article is Montgomery MULTIPLICATION, and that Montgomery REDUCTION is only a subroutine inside Montgomery multiplication. In the present article, one thing that confused me on first reading was that the subroutine (= the Reduction) seems to be presented as the main thing, not only in the article title, but also in the header text.
Writing this, I now discover that I should maybe present my "rename" proposal clearly and explicitly as a combined proposal, of which one element is to rewrite the header text, and the other element to change the article title. What do you think?
Sorry for the long posting. Do inform me when this size of posting is less fitting (in general or here on your Talk page).
With best regards, --MRaccoon (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I've been a bit slow to respond, MRaccoon; real life (family stuff) has been busy over the Easter break. You raised a bunch of points, so let's see how I go addressing them:
  • I had a boss who was really into MBTI a while ago, so I read up on it then. From memory, I was ISTJ or ISTP (it varied each time).
  • I am glad to see you appreciate what a big job a rewrite can be. It always looks so seductively simple before you start. Then "the devil is in the details" and it blows out bigger than you imagined. That's my experience, anyway.
  • Now that I understand your proposal better, I agree that is more than simply a redirect. Anyway, the first question is whether the existing page should be expanded in scope to become Montgomery MULTIPLICATION, or whether that should be a separate article. That is, should the final result be one page or two? That would be a discussion to have with the experts in the subject.
  • I absolutely support the idea of starting small, with improvements to the existing article. If the rewrite happens, those improvements will be carried into it, so the effort will be valuable no matter which way it turns out.
  • WP doesn't "rename" pages in the strict sense: it moves them. In practice it's the same, but using that terminology makes it easier to look up the instructions, etc. I have not actually done a move (I told you I'm not the most experienced editor!) My understanding is that redirection from the old page is created automatically. All the details are at WP:MOVE.
  • Finally, reading the comments, there are mentions of other terms and it is not clear to me whether they are separate aspects which might also need to be catered for: " Montgomery modular multiplication" and "modular exponentiation". Apparently there are different issues for the two, so this might affect the choice of one page or two (or three?) --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hello Gronk Oz, thank you for your friendly and helpful reply. Sorry to have mistaken you for an "N".

Of course I meant "rename" as a synonym of "move". Thanks for your reply on the rename/move. I will try be careful in my terminology when writing my proposal to be posted on the Mathematics project talk page.

You write: >> Anyway, the first question is whether the existing page should be expanded in scope to become Montgomery MULTIPLICATION, or whether that should be a separate article. That is, should the final result be one page or two? That would be a discussion to have with the experts in the subject. <<

That is a good point, thank you. I will ponder this and integrate this in the posting I will write on the Mathematics project talk page.

With regard to your last paragraph : It is vital to understand that all of the Montgomery stuff is exclusively only about modular arithmetic. The whole Montgomery idea applies strictly only to modular arithmetic. (Which is extremely clear from Montgomery's 1985 paper but could maybe be stated more clearly or prominently in the WP article.) I.e. whenever the term "Montgomery multiplication" (or addition, or exponentiation) is used, it is understood that it is modular multiplication (or addition, or exponentiation, and so on).

In the Montgomery representation, you can execute any type of modular arithmetic, i.e. you can do e.g. (modular) addition, (modular) subtraction, as well as (modular) multiplication. The reason why multiplication is stressed is because it is for multiplication (and not for e.g. addition) that the Montgomery idea yields a speed-up. I.e. one uses the Montgomery idea when one has a computation that includes many (modular!) multiplication operations. Therefore, it seems right to me that "multiplication" (i.e. modular multiplication) is the keyword under which the Montgomery idea (method, invention, discovery, algorithm) is classified. (As Montgomery himself also did, since he titled his 1985 paper "Modular Multiplication Without Trial Divison", whereas in it he describes the whole thing, including all other (modular) arithmetic operations that are possible in his number representation.)

Further, modular exponentiation (i.e., "Montgomery modular exponentiation") is mentioned in the WP article, I think, because it seems to be the primary example of a calculation that involves many multiplications -- i.e. a good example of a calculation where the Montgomery idea yields a large speedup. If I understand correctly, then modular exponentiation is typically carried out by successively squaring the operand to be raised to the given power, then summing the relevant squares (this is explained in an easy-to-read way in the webpage by Martin Kochanski = item Nr 2 in the Reference section in the Montgomery reduction article). I.e., I am pretty sure that the exponentiation is mentioned in the WP article because it is the most obvious useful application (and maybe also the most-used application) of Montgomery modular multiplication. Therefore, mentioning of modular exponentiation, as an example of an area of application of the Montgomery idea, is IMO definitely on topic in an article on Montgomery modular multiplication.

There does not exist a specific algorithm for exponentiation in the Montgomery representation. In the Montgomery representation, exponentation is simply performed exactly in the same way as in any other number representation (namely, for example by successive squaring). Therefore, in my view, "Montgomery exponentiation" does not deserve a separate WP article.

Thanks again for your replies, which have been very helpful to me towards writing a better proposal on improving the Montgomery article. I hope to post a first proposal on the Mathematics talk page in a few days. With best regards, --MRaccoon (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

PS: Hello Gronk Oz, this is to inform you that I've just posted my proposal concerning the Montgomery reduction article on the Mathematics project talk page, here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Article_.22Montgomery_reduction.22:_Change_its_presentation_to_.22Montgomery_multiplication.22. I would cordially invite also your comments there, if and when you have time. Many thanks in advance.
BTW: It is clearly very presumptuous for me as a new user to say this, but I loved your comment on the teahouse, about whether veteran editors are "officially above criticism". :-) If you're an "S" type in the MBTI, then I would tend to peg you as an ISTP (a type that is described as generally impatient with and irreverent towards authority) rather than ISTJ. It's the same with me. I greatly respect people who by copious contributions have gained a high-status position, but also have a strong streak of distrust of "experts" and "authority figures" (I mean that as a general statement independent of Wikipedia; I do not intend here to criticize how Wikipedia is run). --MRaccoon (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, MRaccoon, you obviously made a very convincing case because D.Lazard has made the move already! And he put the logical redirections in place so that one article should cover everything well. (I love redirections for this sort of issue; they save you from having to make awkward choices, and allow the reader to find the article they want.) Ozob is right about being bold, but the corollary to that is often "be bold, but not reckless" and the line between them is often hard to discern, so I think you did the right thing by asking. Now, as the other commentators on the Mathematics project point out, you have their encouragement to proceed. And if you come across questions which don't get answered on the page's Talk page, you know where to go for some expert help. --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Gronk Oz, I've seen it, thank you. I have to say that I am finding the Wikipedia community quite very civil and polite, and also open and helpful. Thank you again for your help and encouragement, & with best regards, --MRaccoon (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, Gronk Oz. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by PrimeHunter (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Please explain your merger tag on Edina, Minnesota article[edit]

Hi, Gronk Oz, I'm not following the rationale for why you proposed merging the article Edina, Minnesota with what appears to be an article that does not currently exist. Could you let the rest of us editors know what you have in mind in the talk page discussion I have opened on the talk page for the existing article? See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, WeijiBaikeBianji - I will do that straight away.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you[edit]

File:Teahouse Barnstar Hires.png CC BY-SA 3.0 Heather Walls Teahouse Barnstar
You are one of the best of the Teahouse hosts, in my opinion. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Wow - that's such a surprise, Cullen, and such an honour coming from you - I have always seen you as a model to aspire to. (Should that say "a model to which to aspire"?) Anyway, I'm not officially a host, I just pitch in where I think I can help, and I try to do more good than harm. So thank you!--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Your welcome statement on Human behavior is hilarious ad your editing on the Renee Rochelle page helped me tremendously! Nairobi Adams (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


I've removed the PROD on this article and taken it to AFD instead. I think a fuller evaluation of the sources is in order. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, WikiDan61. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding new User:Aniltheultimate[edit]

Do you believe thus is reliable source?

This looks like a website starting with  :

But when i opened it, it became this: --C E (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @CosmicEmperor:. I honestly don't know whether that source is reliable or not, nor whether the reviewer is well regarded in the field; it's not my area at all. That's why I have been pushing in the Teahouse that the best approach is to discuss it at the article's Talk page, where the points for and against it can be examined. Website redirections like you describe are common practice, so I don't think that is a factor one way or the other. I got the impression that Aniltheultimate only understood part of the problem with using a blog; he/she seemed to get the possibility of it not being independent, but not the question about whether it was reliable. WP:BLOG allows limited use of blogs with care, where appropriate so if he still thinks it is worth pursuing (and I guess he does, because he put it back) then it's worth having the discussion - if nothing else, a new editor may learn something from a well-conducted, fact-based discussion.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 May[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

How did you get here?[edit]

Dear Mr. Gronk, or is it Mr. Oz, thanks for getting me to this page: Can you tell me how you got here? Thanks. (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @ I wish I could lay claim to something really clever, but it was just brute force and ignorance. I saw the question at the TeaHouse, so I went to have a look at the Mold article. I clicked on the "View History" tab and browsed them. About half-way down, I saw couple of edits to the section "Molds in art" and a quick look showed it was the insertion and deletion of the material in question.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Michael Costello (fashion designer) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Costello (fashion designer) 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 Costello (fashion designer) 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.

I notice that you nominated this article for speedy deletion as A7 - Non notable on th 18th April. It was so deleted but it has been recreated. I do not believe that the subject is any more notable today than it was one month ago. I B Wright (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this, @I B Wright: - I will put in my two cents over at the AfD discussion.--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

May I quote you?[edit]

Human behaviour fascinates, confuses and scares me in pretty much equal degrees.

We Ozians seem to think in similar ways. It must have something to do with our national separateness from the human race.  :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
JackofOz, I would be honoured - help yourself! --Gronk Oz (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Challenge[edit]

Please chat with me on Broken Valors speedy deletion. I tried to write it in a encyclopedic method. Please inform me what is wrong Traceymak (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Traceymak: and thanks for starting the conversation. The difficulty with this article, and with most articles about bands in their early days, is that they don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for what is called "notability". In general, encyclopaedias of any type don't include articles about everybody and everything - just those that are most widely known and covered. Wikipedia articles cover notable topics — those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The general guideline is that the subject needs to have a "credible claim of significance", by showing that it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The detailed explanation can be found at Wikipedia:Notability, and there is a section outlining the specific considerations for bands at WP:BAND.
In practice, this normally means showing extensive coverage in reputable newspapers, major magazines, books, etc. There is no mention of anything along those in your article, and a quick Web search did not reveal any news coverage about the band. I found their own Facebook and Twitter pages, but those tell me what they say about themselves which does not contribute to notability. And there were a couple of "What's On"-type listings, but again that does not establish their notability.
Of course, it is quite possible that there is coverage which I missed. If so, your first action should be to contest the deletion and explain that situation. Then it will be a matter of expanding the article to include the relevant references. But if that coverage is not there yet, then their article will need to wait until they are better known. --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
@Traceymak:, I just noticed that another of your articles, Justin Michael Bell, has also been proposed for speedy deletion due to lack of notability. This needs the same sort of attention as above. --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarifying References Issues and Thanking You[edit]

Hello, This Proloumbo

Firstly, I want to thank you for explaining clearly the problems and where I have gone wrong. It was a relief to wake up to your messsage, as I had read the guidelines quite thoroughly and was quite bemused by the end of yesterday. Would it be possible for you to help me clarify a few things to help me going forward?

The first question is: Are you saying that Masters Theses and Doctoral Dissertations are NOT reliable sources, even when they have been accepted and are available? Or are you saying that the one you mentioned is unacceptable because it is a Masters by Papers. The University in that case offers a post-graduate degree 'by papers', rather than by a single Thesis or Dissertation. I should really know the answer to this before proceeding with any further work. The second question is, rather than using the Template:Cite reference, can I add the URL of where the paper is available online, after the reference. That would suit me, because I do all my research outside of the Wikipedia editor, but pasting in url's, though extra work, would be fine for me. Lastly, can you tell me if the article Bertold Wiesner is also needing the ref improve tag on it, which was put there by Bronan, so I know if I have to do any more work on it. It took a huge amount of work to gather ll the information for that, and I thought I had been pretty thorough. But maybe not. I will go through the audio therapy article and clarify each reference when I have finished the few articles I am working on now. And I will cease referring to Masters and Doctoral Theses if that is prohibited. Again, thank you for your kindness. It makes such a difference to incentive. Best wishes

PS: I founf the answer to one question: Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised.......etc

--Prolumbo (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)