# User talk:PrimeHunter/Archive 2

## User:CRGreathouse/Tables of special primes: part II

After our discussion, I've added 15 types of primes to my list: 4 constellations, 6 miscellaneous, and 5 that are cofinite in the primes. Here are the new ones:

• Friedman primes
• pandigital primes
• permutable primes
• elite primes
• Soundararajan primes
• symmetric primes
• Hogben's central polygonal primes
• sexy primes, prime triplets (both types), prime quadruplets
• primes, odd, titanic, gigantic, and megaprimes

I'd also like advice on categorization. Repunit primes seem to fit naturally into the base-dependent section, but of course they're actually Diophantine primes (of form ${\displaystyle (10^{k}-1)/9}$, naturally). Likewise, primes and odd primes could be linear Diophantine primes or 'size-based' primes with titanic/gigantic/mega.

I thought of another issue as well. The page uses big-O notation in its literal sense, and this may be confusing. If there some text I should put in to this effect? For example, elite primes are O(n/log² n) in the sense that they're no more common than n/log² n, but they're actually nearly that dense -- they seem to be of logarithmic density, as Müller conjectures. (Well, he actually conjectures polylogarithmic, but supposes that c = 1 could be taken.) Quick options here:

• Leave it as is
• Add lower bounds or disclaimer of lower bounds for each entry: O(n/log² n), lower bound unknown
• Split 'size' into lower and upper bounds (using colwidth=2 for tight bounds)
• Other?

After working on the page for a while, I decided that I don't think it's a candidate for replacing List of prime numbers. The purposes are just too different -- the current List is already straying a bit from its title, and this is just too different.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

## Another Help desk barnstar

 The Help Desk Barnstar For your exceptional work on the Help desk, and teaching me some stuff, I award you this barnstar. --Teratornis (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

## twin, sexy and related primes

Hi, thanks for going over my recent extension of twin prime. I found it remarkable that there are twice as much "sexy primes" as there are twin primes. You deleted it saying "...expected in view of divisibility by 3... mention expectation or don't show counts..." So please could you put an appropriate explanation either there or at sexy primes which does not have any mention of this either ; since the phrase you added in the history will soon have disappeared from WP. Also, what do you think about the remark on quintuplets at sexy prime? It says there can only be one quintuplet. But obviously, a reasonable definition should take into account the given impossibility (just like nobody would define prime triplets as those for which {p,p+2,p+4} are prime). — MFH:Talk 19:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of terms in Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources and not on what seems more reasonable based on the personal views of the editors.

of course I agree.

The MathWorld reference in sexy prime says "There is only a single sexy quintuplet, (5, 11, 17, 23, 29)". I haven't seen another definition, but I can understand why you would like it. The MathWorld definition gives a single trivial quintuplet and is not equivalent to the normal definition of a prime k-tuplet which is k primes as closely together as admissible when considering potential prime factors.

That was exactly my point. But although MathWorld is a kind of reference, and I don't want to underestimate its value), basically it's whatever Eric Weisstein has typed into his editor. There are some definitions apparently created by himself and copied to OEIS, which are frowned upon by others. E.g. recently I was heavily flamed by R.K.Guy when I used EWW's definitions of "squareful, cubeful,..." (which makes perfectly sense to me) - to RKG and other people, these terms should mean the same thing than 2-full,3-full...
Just to say that Eric might well be open to modify his definition (if he did not take it from another reference work, but as you said it is improbable that such would exist), if we convince him that another one would make more sense.
(PS: of course I know about your findings of the largest of those k-tuplets you mentioned) — MFH:Talk 19:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for elaborating on k-tuplets, and congrats for the nice find of the 4-quadruplet (which could also be named a hexadecuplet, isn't it? Well, no need to fear being spammed by lists of those, I suppose...) PS: Do you use home-made, hand-tailored software to do such searches? — MFH:Talk 05:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[...got cpu time after finding largest 15-tuplet some days ago...]
Is it a coincidence that this happened just after I left you a message on this sexy prime stuff? - PS: maybe it would be easier if we continued discussion by e-mail -- unless you like the fact that this conversation allows you to "publish" & time-stamp your "daily" findings :-) — MFH:Talk 12:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

## List of Mosques Article

H, I am having a problem editing the List of Mosques article. As you can see, it previously grouped mosques according to geography. But now a new user decided to make a specail section for only the Arab states. This is blatantly political, and it messes up the the flow in a variety of ways. First, you look at the sections Israel and Palestinian Authority. The Jerusalem mosques are listed under Palestinian Authority, which is not the case at all. And the Ibrahimi Mosque of Hebron is listed under Israel. The logic used in grouping these mosques is idiotic at best. I would greatly appreciate your help in reverting the article the way it was before, mosque categories based on country, as it is more logical and flows much better.--Brad M. (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried to get involved, but for some reason I cannot make any edits from my account. I do not know if I am being blocked or if it is a glitch. Anyway, can I ask that you open up the subject on the article discussion page until I get get this affair in order? I would greatly appreciate it.--Brad M. (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

## Heraclio Bernal

Just wanted to stop by and thank you for fixing the formatting for the ballad on the article. I have been trying to get some help, or guidance on how to do it. Again much appreciated for the assistance. Just so I know, had you seen one of my posts asking for help, or did you just stumble on the article? --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You write:

There is a question about the old edit [1] by you at Wikipedia:Help desk#Comparative Distance Links. The links look a little odd to me. Any comments?

Thanks for the heads up. I have responded at the help desk. -- Chris j wood (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

## Thanks

I really appreciate you answering my question and really following through on it. I'm new here and let's just say don't really know my way around. Thanks for all your help. Æon 15:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

## thank you!

Willow wren (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

## re: Clark Gesner

Thank you again. We'll give it some time but if we don't here from Kingboyk I will definitely contact you. Willow wren (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

## List of isotopes

Please just replace the article with your table instead of proposing and discussing it, which seems silly considering that nature of the list (commonly found in general encyclopedias) and the improvements you've offered. There's a lot to debate on Wikipedia without discussing the obvious. --Blechnic (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Blechnic (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

THANKS for awnsering so quickly! I may register an account. Still, have to decide. 64.203.192.70 (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

## Terry Anderson (Politician) Article

Thanks for the quick response. In a way, I wish the article was deleted. At least this way, I would know why it was deleted. By drastically reducing it and redirecting it elsewhere, I have no idea why it was effectively zapped! How can I follow up and find out why it was redirected? Smonzavi (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a vandal going about under an IP address 205.202.240.118 He/she has made ridiculous edits such as changing the name of Surianme to China, and the Capital to Alaska. All it takes is a glance back through his/her history and you can see how many times they have vandalized. Thank You. (Red4tribe (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

I worked it out it was a problem with Firefox, not Wikimedia, and now I have it under control. Thanks for the insanely quick reply! acne_m (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

## Indonesian terrorism

Hi I have just come across a 'terrorism definition' block of text in the indonesian terrorism category - I am concerned that such a placed template is problematic - as category space is possibly an 'unread' space - have you put that in all terrorism cat spaces at all? - it seems to be something that should be qualified in an article SatuSuro 01:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response - I can relate to your response - and understand it - not sure where I am gonna go with it all - as there seem to be some parallel arts that I will have to get my head around - and I understand and accept your not wanting to go into where why or how - thanks for that SatuSuro 15:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

## Convoy SC-143

Thanks for fixing the links; I was a bit distracted last week. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

## WTIX-AM

I just saw your final repsonse to me on the Help Desk from March 15, and for all practical purposes, the only surviving remnant of the WTIX (AM) article is the link to the New Orleans station.

Ever since I saw on the Help Desk that you shouldn't just copy and paste without crediting the person who contributed you're copying and pasting from in another article, I've tried to make sure I credited the other person. There was a case where a radio station changed call letters and what was left in the old article was only appropriate for the new article. The move wasn't handled correctly, and I moved the misplaced information to where it fit better, then later found out I needed to go back and credit who added it. That was NOT easy!Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

## Question

Thank you for answering, I've read the document and see what I have done wrong.. Sorry about that, there is so much information on that you loose you way.. Anway the reason I would like to make a page is because TASCQ is a non-profit company founded to maintaining and enhance the area of Temple Bar in Dublin, Ireland. For us it would just be to inform people about the company, without promoting or selling anything. I've read the document you gave me, but it is still not really clear to me. I have to have a new account just for me to make a page, but I can still not upload images? Is there any concrete way I could get TASCQ on wikipedia or can I just forget about it.. haha??

P.s. I don't know how it all exactly works so sorry if I do something wrong again.

Hope you can answer! Thanks Tascq (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

## Thank you!

Thanks for the reply. And especially for letting me know that you replied (via posting on my talk page). Thank you!68.148.164.166 (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

 The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar For being a great guy!68.148.164.166 (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

## Symmetric Primes

well, you use loaded wording on your edit summaries - there is nothing "alleged" about symmetric primes [2] ...--Billymac00 (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

## AfD nomination of Fibonacci numbers in popular culture

I have nominated Fibonacci numbers in popular culture, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fibonacci numbers in popular culture (2nd nomination). 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Oli Filth(talk) 19:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

## Prime Number Implementations

Hello. Have you seen this fork? Mathsci (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

## Thankyou

Thank-you for the account creator tool 23:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

## One can never have too many barnstars...

PrimeHunter is awarded this Barnstar of Diligence for all of his work at the Help Desk and New Contributors' Help Page. -- Natalya 02:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Even though I see that you have a lot of barnstars for your work there... that doesn't mean that you don't deserve one more! I'm continually impressed with how many people I see you helping out there. -- Natalya 02:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

## Talk Page for PICUM

I just added a reference to this new page and noticed that the talk page needs to be created by an admin because of the blacklist, since you created the article page could you create the talk page as well. Thanks --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your fast response.--Captain-tucker (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

## Jabberwocky (disambiguation)

Hi, PH, and thanks for your good catch on the over-italicized lks in Jabberwocky (disambiguation). I looked at the previous edit, hoping that it had involved something momentous enough to give some fig-leaf of justification to my overlooking them. But, no, it's one of those edits that i'm embarrassed to have my sig on. [sigh]
I'm reverting the "expansion" of the first line, tho: the reason for more than a lk in a Dab entry is if it will prevent users lk'g to the wrong article, and the reason for Jabberwocky not being the Dab is that no one needs reference to Carrol or "nonsense" to help tell "Jabberwocky, the poem" from alternatives.
Just one other bizarre little wrinkle for your amusement (if like me you enjoy bizarre little wrinkles): i had to look at you edit, bcz the summary said

no italics in disambiguators

That suggests there's something wrong with Jim (Huckleberry Finn) or "The Beard" (Seinfeld episode), so i take exquisite pleasure in phrasing it

no italics outside the book, film, or series title

Of course, if that just creeps you out, keep saying it your own way!
Thanks again,
--Jerzyt 06:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
PS: I had mistyped your "initials", and got another chance to to remember the messages i glimpsed above, which clarify that you're not a champ with a rifle. Way cool; thanks for doing what got a little too abstract for me in the end! --Jerzyt 06:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You sound like somewhat of a perfectionist if you are embarrassed about something you didn't do but just omitted to change.
People can reach dab pages in different ways, for example from something in Special:WhatLinksHere/Jabberwocky (disambiguation) (which currently has some pages that ought not be there, but things happen). I guess some readers will be unaware of the poem. Saying it's a poem is probably enough for a dab page, but I suggest "a poem" instead of "the poem" which might be interpreted as a bit condescending by readers who don't already know it.
I edit few dab pages and have not evolved standard edit summaries. "no italics in disambiguators" was just a description of the specific edit and not a rule, but I see your point.
And yes, the hunting weapon of choice for my trophy collection [3] is not a rifle but a more peaceful computer. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• My first thot (confirmed by a quick experiment) is that one of the ways that WP fails to distinguish Dabs from articles (even tho it distinguishes Rdr's, and even tho the Pop-Up Tools recognize Dabs) is on the What links here. Of course, the complementary relationship (quasi-duals?) of Dabs and Rdrs means that most pages are lkd from many Rdrs, and zero or one, or rarely a handful of Dabs, so that the impact of such a feature would be more limited than the Rdr one. I've never thot much abt lks from Dabs; would people avoid back-lking via them, it they were sure, and what is their reaction or goal when they do?
I don't recall ever noticing an adequate discussion of a model of "the Dab user":
(I was just using you for my Beatrice in writing the next passage -- from here thru the last-but-one 'graph -- but i'm going to leave it in this message, in hopes of benefiting from the thot behind your mention of What-links-here, even more than i might have with a politely short question -- the hope you'll at least erase my question mark, or that my scenarios have invited you, or stimulated your imagination, to flesh out that case a little.)
1. Editors previewing what they've written, and using the pop-up tools to know what Dabs they've targeted and to "pre-bypass" them. (Nice, but i acknowledge that Everyone'sMMV about the right point to draw the inevitable limit to the editing of things related to your own edit. And i wonder if i look at the What-links-here of Dabs i'm editing often enuf; hmm!)
2. Editors working on something else, and potential bypassing.
3. Non-editors, who won't consider bypassing.
4. Looking up a bio by surname, to save typing a given name the reader already knows (i'm a lazy typist, and usually do that).
Two irreducible scenarios, also involving typing in the Go box:
5. User aware of ambiguity, but (wisely) not taking the crapshoot of trying to guess the Dab'g sfx.
6. User knows how to recognize what they want, but remembers or was given too little info to deduce one of the already anticipated titles (My current favorite -- a Rdr solution rather than a Dab one -- was hearing (uh,) Van Maagren‎ (?) discussed on Fresh Air this week; that spelling is just one that i added a Rdr for.)
Several of what i'll call "scattergun" scenarios, including yours:
7. Listed on a What-links-here, and what, pursued out of curiosity?
8. Listed on a Contribs, Recent changes, or (rarely) Related changes list, followed out of curiosity, or ??
9. Provided by Random Article, obvious a matter of curiosity
My take is that
1-3 are easy to do, and utterly indispensible;
5 & 6 are so valuable (but how often?) that the more substantial effort of making them work well in those roles deserves a place in WP's priorities (which is to say in some editors' priorities);
4 is harmless, and facilitating it is a side effect of supporting 5 & 6;
7-9 i'm not sure how to either evaluate, or facilitate, nor how far to go to facilitate them in light of their respective values.
And BTW, yes, i do tend to be a perfectionist, e.g. on distinguishing dabs from articles. But i'll make no bones with you about choosing between the articles you are concerned about! [Smile]
--Jerzyt 05:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

## Re: Palindrome edit

Hi, Sorry about that. Humans make mistakes, and its hard to know in some cases which way it should be.

The amount of edits that I have saved, is much higher than that of what i have actually saved (http://typoscan.reedyboy.net/). If i just saved every one, the number of bad edits would be much larger

No major problem caused, and it is easily revertable

Reedy 14:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If the noticeboard is not the proper venue, OK, we can discuss it here. I see that you're basically asking me to drop the subject. I may pursue a move at WP:RM, but my basic concern is that such a discussion was already conducted with a consensus to use "Amro." Guy swooped in with the tools and LITERALLY said "fuck the MOS" in entrenching his position. He may as well have also said "fuck the consensus," too, since the most recent discussion ended with a verdict to move. Why shouldn't I think that, if another discussion results in a consensus to move to and use "Amro," that Guy won't just swoop in again and do the same thing. "Fuck the MOS," right? Is it really OK for him to do what he did? I recognize that in the grand scheme this isn't a big deal, and admins are afraid of wheel wars and infighting, but this doesn't seem like anything close to what an admin should be doing. If I end up getting the tools someday, would you suggest that I use them as Guy has done here? Croctotheface (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The noticeboard Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive159#ABN AMRO or ABN Amro? was the proper venue to discuss the actions of Guy but it has now been archived without consensus against Guy. I'm saying a continuation at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests is not proper. And yes, I'm suggesting to end the discussion about Guy which at this point seems unlikely to lead anywhere worth the effort.
The first RM had few posts and was almost even. A new RM seems likely to get more posts and might get a more clear result. I doubt Guy would do the same with a clear consensus among many editors, and if he did then it might fare less well at an administrator noticeboard. And no, I don't suggest that you or others do as Guy. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I missed the discussion the first time. I brought it up on the other board because I thought it wasn't discussed, not because I wanted to "continue" to discuss it. That said, I was still curious about your opinion on the matter, since you declined to give it when I first asked. The suggestion that others should not do what he did answers that concern. Hopefully another RM will solve the consensus issue. I think there's likely to be one. Croctotheface (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

## Revised "Translated page" template

Hi,

Following up on my comments on the Help page, I've revised the "Translated page" template to make it more user-friendly. Please let me know what you think! Thanks.--Number17 (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) Yes my new instructions are longer than before, but they still are only a couple of short paragraphs: an extra time investment of maybe ten seconds for techies.
(2) I have some experience writing instructions for a general audience. I'm not famous or anything, but I do know a thing or two and I believe my instructions are easier to understand for non-technical people. At the same time, they are still fully comprehensible to an experienced, technical audience.
(3) Why exclude people needlessly from contributing when it's possible to get them onboard?
(4) I did not say anything about revising "thousands of templates". That could be discussed later, if ever.

Assuming that we cannot reach agreement between the two of us, where in Wikipedia can I take this discussion to open it up to a wider audience? Is there a place separate from the people who are screaming at each other and demanding blocks, etc., -- I looked at the Administrator Noticeboard/Incidents and it does not seem appropriate?--Number17 (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
"... But very few users, or maybe nobody ever, will go through that experience with this particular template again. ..."
You could be wrong about that. I hate arguing from anecdotal experience (my own), but it's all I have for now. What happened was, I posted a question on a German Wikipedia user's talk page, asking him for permission to translate his German-language article. He said to go right ahead and gave me two links: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%C3%9Cbersetzungen and en:Template:Translated_page. I read the first one, it contained no instructions on using the "Translated Page Template". I opened the second, and both the layout of the page and the instructions were confusing.
I don't believe that my experience is unusual or rare. If you have not seen many people in this situation come to the Help page, it may because most have already given up by that stage. They may decide to simply translate the article and forget about the Template. Or they may turn to another endeavor altogether.
How about if you meet me halfway, and revise the Translated Page Template documentation in such a way that both audiences are catered to?--Number17 (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
"Imagine a thick set of software manuals which at every of thousands of instances of things like "Press Shift+F1" wrote "Hold down a Shift key while pressing F1. The Shift keys are usually to the right and left of the letters and may display an arrow pointing up instead of text. F1 is a single key usually placed in a row above the digits. It does not mean to press the letter F followed by the digit 1."
In the set of software manuals, volume 1 at the beginning typically will have a fold-out made of sturdy cardboard setting forth these basics. Additionally, keycaps such as F1 or @ will be shown in a different typeface or color or with a key-shaped border around them, throughout the manuals. A manual is a book. Even if you do not read it front to back, it has an inherent sequential order which is immediately apparent. A hypertext compilation like the Wikipedia is very different.
And I dare say that even users with an engineering background will do a double take, initially, when they read "first parameter" but this actually refers to the second element within the template, not the first :-)--Number17 (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I may be a lowly newbie ;-) around these parts, but Wikipedia:Template documentation seems to back me up. PH, can you please suggest a place where more than two can continue this discussion? I know that ukexpat is also interested, and it's very cumbersome to walk over to each of your talk pages in order to keep you both posted.--Number17 (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey I like it! Especially the way you put the code on a different-colored background, thus making it easier for the user to highlight and select what they require.
Two quick suggestions: The light orange colored box at the top of the Template really should go. I understand that the code must be preserved, but is there a way of formatting it so that it will be operative but doesn't display? Readers think top-down: what's on top gets the most attention, the clickable links in that box want to be clicked, and off the user goes on a wild goose chase.
Also, why should the template go on the Talk page? I suggest this be changed to the Article page, we want readers to see this right away and give proper credit to the original article and its authors.
Finally, you picked a French article that has been translated to English, but the translation does not have the Template. I'll browse through the French Wikipedia tomorrow, perhaps I'll find one.
Cheers!--Goodmorningworld (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I tried (in "preview" mode only) to hide the orange box by using "onlyinclude" (or was it "includeonly?"). Anyway, it worked, and moreover, this slides the rest of the page up so that the orange box below ("The result will look like this") becomes visible in the first screenful, no scrolling down necessary. That comes pretty close to meeting your requirement of "many users who expect to be able to quickly see what a template produces when they look at the top of the template page".
"The translation box is not important information for usual readers"... I think it is, and that is why I'm keeping it there for articles that I translate.
"Authors are not written on articles anyway so readers always have to click something (for example "history") to see who wrote it."
Well isn't that part of the point of the Template... to give a clickable link right in the infobox that will take readers directly to the original article's authors?
On the other hand... I feel that you have been very good about meeting me halfway in regards of the wording of the instructions, striking a nice balance between the cryptic terseness that so befuddled me and my own attempt which suffered from excessive verbosity. So in acknowledgement of your genuinely helpful efforts, I am ready to pull in my horns and leave things be at this point. Thanks again.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

## Brun's theorem

While not the greatest way of phrasing it, "finite sum or convergent" are not the same. We do not know whether or not there are infinitely many twin primes, so if the set is finite, the sum is finite in the sense of having only finitely many terms -- if the set is infinite, then the sum is an infinite series and the theorem states that it converges to a finite value. Richard Pinch (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. I misinterpreted "finite sum" as sum with finite value. Feel free to modify my edit to the lead. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

## 1729

I don't understand why a formula generating a ( dense ) subsequence of the 'Fermat near misses', defined as 1+z^3 = x^3+y^3, is "low notable". It is quite a simple formula, but why didn't anybody notice it before? I guess because it was "low notable" ! The sentence of my addition which you left in is, after all, a triviality, so why don't you remove it too? Why does anybody care about this 1729 business in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by L mammel (talkcontribs) 03:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The edit was to the article 1729 (number) and my edit summary [4] said "seems low-notable for 1729". I don't know whether you are first to notice this formula but I don't think it belongs in 1729 (number). The article already says 1729 is first in oeis:A050794 (Fermat near misses which different people have studied). Obviously 1729 will also be first in any subsequence of A050794 that includes 1729. If your subsequence is far from satisfying Wikipedia:Notability then I don't see why an article about the number 1729 should mention it when the more important "parent sequence" is already mentioned. Per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Suggesting changes to articles, or requesting a new article you can suggest your formula and sequence at Talk:1729 (number). PrimeHunter (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I can accept that the 1729(number) page may not be the best place to mention the formula generated subsequence I speak of, but I would just like to add a few comments about my view of things here. My entire interest in the subject orginated with a recent revival of my thinking about the H-R anecdote and the equation 1729=1+12^3=9^3+10^3. ( I learned of this in my youth from THE LORE OF LARGE NUMBERS. ) I conceived of its generalization in terms of ( what turns out to be ) A050794, and worked on generating its terms. So, you can see that in my mind, all this stems directly from the famously cited property of 1729, and is far from "low notable" for an article devoted to the number and the anecdote. While scanning the output, a certain triplet of terms "jumped out at me" and led me to the formula, which revealed the hidden subsequence, and it was with some amazement that I realized the first such generated term was 1729 itself. I have to question how much this sequence has been studied, if indeed no one else has noticed the same thing. ( I note that the available on-line material pertaining to "Fermat near misses" is oriented towards the general concept and does not seem to specifically reference the sequence in OEIS A050794. ) I have to object to your given reason that it is trivial that the subsequence begins with 1729, which was namely that any subsequence which includes 1729 must begin with it. It would indeed be trivial if we formed a subsequence by taking every other term or every third time, or any such process of selection. But in this case, we have a formula which satisfies the defining property of the sequence, and easily generates a large number of arbitrarily large terms in the sequence, which would be otherwise unknown, as please note that only the first 74 terms are available in the OEIS. I have extended it to 118 terms, but they start to come hard at this point. 34 of these terms are in the generated subsequence, and there are several cases where there are no "wild" terms in between a successive pair of generated terms, e.g. A(83) and A(84). So the generated subsequence forms a sort of measure of the parent sequence, and many interesting questions about its limiting behavior suggest themselves.--68.77.20.252 (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The famous property of 1729 is being first in oeis:A001235. Other have found better known formulas to generate members of A001235, see for example http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DiophantineEquation3rdPowers.html. oeis:A050794 is a special case of A001235, and your sequence is then a special case of a special case. If we had an article about Fermat near misses then it would appear relevant but it seems too peripherical to 1729 (number) which is about the number in general and not just about the famous property. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The pertinent equations at the mathworld reference are (57) and (58), due to Ramanujan. Note that (57) gives a parameterization, and (58) gives a cubic equation in the parameters which must be solved to find solutions. I beleive this is the case for the other more modern citation as well, although I don't have access to the references. I played around with the Ramanujan formulas and found that they can be restricted to an equation which is solved by my formula. That is, my formula gives all solutions to this restricted case. Interestingly, the missing ( "wild" ) terms of A050794 are not in evidence when I canvassed solutions for small values of the parameters ( up to a few thousand. ) There's a simple back calculation ( which holds in the general case ) that gives the parameter lambda, and this comes up nonintegral for the second term of A050794. The 12th term ( which is "wild" ) does show up for a largish and negative value of 'a', but of course, the back calculation for lambda works fine here, and I don't see how the 2nd term will fit the parameters. ( The calculation is just the ratio of two differences of the generated terms, so it's not affected by "multiplying through" . )--L mammel (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it is worth citing my own raw data showing how the subsequence A141326[5] falls out of my evaluation of Ramanujan's own formulation:

+ -3 1962 21 247: 184 110889 41449 108924
+ -2 46 4 13: 5 254 197 206
+ -2 307 13 49: 23 8588 4040 8279
+ -2 628 4 181: 173 3524 2693 2894
+ -2 1000 28 109: 53 86456 28109 85454
+ -2 1000 7 218: 204 11682 7218 10680
+ -1 500 7 109: 102 5841 3609 5340
+ 0 3 3 1: 1 12 10 9
+ 0 6 12 1: 1 150 73 144
+ 0 6 3 2: 2 24 20 18
+ 0 9 27 1: 1 738 244 729
+ 0 9 3 3: 3 36 30 27
+ 0 12 48 1: 1 2316 577 2304
+ 0 12 12 2: 2 300 146 288
+ 0 12 3 4: 4 48 40 36
+ 0 15 75 1: 1 5640 1126 5625
+ 0 15 3 5: 5 60 50 45
+ 0 18 108 1: 1 11682 1945 11664
+ 0 18 27 2: 2 1476 488 1458
+ 0 18 12 3: 3 450 219 432
+ 0 18 3 6: 6 72 60 54
+ 0 21 147 1: 1 21630 3088 21609
+ 0 21 3 7: 7 84 70 63
--L mammel (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This is unsuited for 1729 (number). Ramanujan's work and maybe your sequence would fit in an article about Equal sums of like powers but it hasn't been created although Google web and scholar searches show it would satisfy Wikipedia:Notability. I haven't found a relevant article in Category:Diophantine equations. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
[6] mentions Ramanujan's work and says Euler made something similar. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

## Category:Cancelled things

Hello, I just spotted the note you left on my talk page -- for some reason I never saw it. I don't have a good, short answer for you about Category:Cancelled things. But you might like to read the CFD discussion that resulted in the creation of the closely related Category:Unreleased works by medium -- there's a link to the CFD on the category's talk page. At some point, I expect I will make another effort to clean up the mess. :) Cgingold (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That works, don't forget to move the disambig page to Tobacco (disambiguation), and fix the redirects. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the idea was, we'll start with everything then deduct the irrelevant entries over time. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Another thing, I think you've ruined Frank's moment; he was planning on doing the CSD move; but I think that's ok. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
No moment for me. It's all about the encyclopedia. 03:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't seen the plan but this was a rather simple and boring move. Step 1 at User talk:Gwen Gale#Assistance? was not needed because the only edit to the target page was redirecting it to the source. Step 3 was not needed in advance of step 4. If an administrator moves to an existing target then the software just asks whether the target should be deleted and all you have to do is check a box to accept. And there were no page histories to merge or other complications. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

## USSR template vandalism

Hi. I checked the page and didn't see any information relating the zodiac. What template was vandalized? I'm just curious! Thank you. Best, epicAdam (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't actually look for the template. I just know what the Zodiac template vandalism looks like and it wasn't there now. Hundreds or more templates have been hit the last month. It's usually reverted quickly but affected pages may need to be purged. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah ok. I've seen a few of those come up (mostly Russian vandals), but never a zodiac one. Thanks for the explanation! Best, epicAdam (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I looked now. It was {{Audio-ru}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

## More Zodiac Vandalism?

Another example of Zodiac vandalism was at Maria-sama ga miteru where I reverted it and nearly although unintentionally started an all out war. You can find a dscussion of the affected template on the talk page of that article. I got here because you had a comment about insert boxes and their current problems. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was certainly Zodiac vandalism and you clearly removed it in good faith but without knowing the proper way. Lots of users don't know what to do about it. Do you need any help? It seems you eventually received the explanation after some posts which could have been more polite. I once started a list of user accounts and IP addresses who made Zodiac vandalism but I quickly got tired of it and stopped without mentioning the list. Each account or IP is only used for minutes, see for example Special:Contributions/217.219.84.251 for this one which was active 1 minute (and blocked 8 minutes later). If you see a Zodiac account or IP which hasn't been blocked yet (click "Block log" on the contributions page) then you can report it to WP:AIV without going through warnings first. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You helped me out with a disagreement several months ago with another editor in regards to the article on North Wilkesboro Speedway. I recently made a change to the article - adding a break command - so that the text would display just as it does on the actual sign itself. The user SWilson2000 (while not logged in - only the IP address appears) has made it apparent that he doesn't like this and has started reverting the document again. Instead of stooping to his level like before I filed on the revert warning page but wanted to know your take on whether this is just trivial or not. I wouldn't be too concerned except that this editor has claimed to be a member of group who is referenced in the article - which to me puts the neutral point of view into question - but regardless because of the previous disagreement with this editor he apparently feels the need to revert anything, anytime that I touch the article if he for some reason doesn't like it. I know it is trivial but like I said in the revert warning page it seems to be trivial to remove something like a break command on a line because he has a grudge. (Stevie's daycare (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

I see as quick as I posted this you've already handled this. I know it is trivial but thank you very much. I'm not sure of what the issue is but I do appreciate your time and help. (Stevie's daycare (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

I had not seen your 3RR post at the time and will not reply there because I'm involved in the article, but the IP only made 2 reverts and they were days apart. If there are no previous sanctions in the case then it requires 4 reverts by the same user within 24 hours to report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok - I just didn't want it to end up like last time. If I go to the 3RR board and simply delete my entry will that fixed any issues with that? Also - what is the best way to address an issue like this without going through the reverting issue - especially when dealing with a difficult person? (Stevie's daycare (talk) 02:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

Yes, you can just delete the 3RR entry before it gets rejected. I have been watching the article since the last conflict and will continue that. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thank you very much. I appreciate the help and insight. (Stevie's daycare (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

## Citations

Hello Prime HUnter. I hope you don't mind, but I wanted to ask you a question about references in articles on Wikipedia. I am only quite new to Wikipedia, and was looking at the article Supercouples last night. I noticed what appeared to be a fake or faulty reference - the footnote pointed to www.photobucket.com I removed the reference, but more or less straight away my change had been reveresed and I received a rather rude remark from the editor who owns the page, Flyer22, who told me I was wrong and Photobucket was a tool to duplicate references in an article. Could you explain to me how this works, if it is indeed correct? I don't understand how a photo sharing site helps duplicate references on Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind me asking you - I would ask Flyer22, but I was more or less told by he/her to ^#*& off as "this crap" was evidence I can't use Wikipedia. Eek! Thank you for your time. Susie x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.61.218 (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologized to Susie on her IP talk page for having come off as rude to her. And, for the record, I do not feel that I own the Supercouple article.
Anyway, as I stated on Susie's IP talk page, thank you, PrimeHunter, for explaining to Susie what I meant. Flyer22 (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

## Adaptive Audio Article edit request

I added {{request edit}} to the top and bottom of the Adaptive Audio article. There were some edits, though not many. Unlike Outlook, which has millions of pro/con sided users out there, Adaptive Audio does not have that sized knowledge base to work from. As you are one of the few that has edited the article, I wanted to invite you to make any changes you see fit. Can you do this please? I do not want the article to be dismissed simply because it is a new technology that so few know about, very few edit it and it gets deleted as a result. D3innovation (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't actually edited Adaptive Audio (click the "history" tab to see contributors) and don't know anything about the subject, but I expect to look at the situation tomorrow. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I answered on the help page. Timothy Perper (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

## Copying a Template from Latin Wikipedia -- Can you help?

Hi, I requested and received permission from the Latin Wikipedia to make one of their Templates available within English Wikipedia. Since I'm not sure about the proper procedure for "copying", and since part of the process would require admin rights which I don't have, do you think you could help out? I would be much obliged.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

All Wikipedia language versions use the GFDL so you don't have to ask for permission to copy content. Just credit the source, for example with a link in the edit summary, to satisfy the GFDL. The English Wikipedia already has procedures for non-English external links and for consistency it is best to stick to one system. See Wikipedia:External links#Non-English language content, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Non-English-language sites and Category:Language icon templates. The result looks similar to the Latin Wikipedia to me. If you want changes then I think you should suggest modifications to the existing English Wikipedia methods. Note that non-English external links are relatively rare because so much on the Internet is in English and English links are preferred. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

## Thanks

Thanks for your help in the Wikipedia:Help desk.

(I have a few follow-ups though.)

Yartett (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

## Editing my page

Can you describe the changes you made to my talk page? The four headings are in an order which is against my will , so I will revert your changes to my page.--Dale S. Satre 23:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

## Urgh! Sorry

I am sorry for my earlier comment. I just saw the changes you made to my four headings. Sorry! (But can you explain your changes?) P.S.: I seriously thought that, when I returned to my page, the sentencing of my headings were the work of a vandal! (Chuckle)--Dale S. Satre 23:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

## How to fix a redirect

Thanks for answering my question at the help desk. Could you explain there (for future reference) how you fixed the redirect? --Sultec (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

## Fountain of the Mermaid of Lleida

The pages of others languages is in Help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.23.224.26 (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

## Thank you for help with Mersenne primes

I was very excited about the UCLA announcement in the Times and apologize for not doing the most polished job of adding the discovery to the Mersennes article. Your laser-targeted editing was most appreciated. Raryel (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I see some problems in your edit were just copied from the source. I don't know whether some of the other 74 computers are Dell OptiPlex so I omitted that. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

## Thanks!

 The Help Desk Barnstar For your great assistance with my Help Desk question, this is for you. TN‑X-Man 20:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! PrimeHunter (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

## Hello

Thanks for trying to intercede on my behalf. Justicia Liga (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

## Re: Immortal Game (disambiguation)

I checked the history before I deleted it, and it did seem to be "trivial" edits such as formatting and ordering. There aren't any incoming links from the main space to the disambiguation page, and non-admins will still be able to recreate a new disambiguation page if they are logged in and vetted. I don't know, I could restore it if you think there would be a real need. ... discospinster talk 00:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

## Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles

Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ? Thanks ARP Apovolot (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User: Shotwell suggested (on my talk page) "I would endorse a WP:EXPERTADVICE page that outlined the wikipedia policies and goals for researchers in a way that enticed them to edit here in an appropriate fashion. Perhaps a well-maintained list of expert editors with institutional affiliation would facilitate this sort of highly informal review process. I don't think anyone would object to a well-maintained list of highly-qualified researchers with institutional affiliation (but then again, everyone seems to object to something)."

We could start with that if you would agree ... - could you help to push his idea through Wikipedia bureaucracy ? Apovolot (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

## Main Page redesign

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, PretzelsTalk! 09:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

## Help Desk

Good work at the help desk!. How long have you been on Wikipedia for?--intraining Jack In 14:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. My account was created 3 November 2005 but I had few edits until October 2006.[7]. I made less than 10 IP edits before the account. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)