User talk:Roger Hui/Archive

Erdős number 2

Hi Roger, I wonder if you could insert information as to Erdős numbers into articles that you add to categories such as Category: Erdős number 2 , via a "Misc", "Trivia", or "other" section. For example, Albert Einstein and William Thurston, according to your edits, have Erdős number 2 , but there is no quick way to verify this or see the chain of collaborations, which is something a great many people would probably regard as of key interest.--C S (Talk) 16:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a chain of links that ends up in a pretty good source: Category:Erdős number 2 to Erdős number to (in the External Links section [[1]]. Roger Hui 16:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to the category page that links directly to your source's Erdos 2 list. My concern was that people clicking on the category page would be confused, but I think that's taken care of now. --C S (Talk) 16:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roger. Why are you not listed in Category:Erdős number 2 ? The stated source document for the category, http://www.oakland.edu/enp/Erdos2 , does list you. Rohan Jayasekera 06:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I am adverse to editing my own page, and no one else has put in the category reference. Roger Hui 06:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so. You're listed now! Rohan Jayasekera 03:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roger. If you (or anyone else with any interest in Erdős numbers) don't happen to follow the XKCD comic strip, I suggest having a look at XKCD #599. Rohan Jayasekera (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I saw it last Friday when it came out. Roger Hui (talk) 05:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-greetings

Hi Roger! Yes, I've been updating Wikipedia for some time, mostly just small fixes such as the one you noticed. I've written one article from scratch, Allison Crowe. I've also created a Rohan Jayasekera page: not about me, but rather a disambiguation page for the two Rohan Jayasekera entries, neither of which is about me!

Congratulations on having an Erdős number of 2! (Normally when I end a sentence with an exclamation point and there is a number immediately preceding, I insert a space to avoid an interpretation of "factorial". Fortunately in this particular case that's not a problem!) --Rohan Jayasekera 10:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CfD

Check this out: [2]bunix 02:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I started this whole mess by creating Category:Erdős number 1 and Category:Erdős number 2. I've cast my vote. Roger Hui 11:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Trying to reach an infobox consensus here: [3]. Please can you weigh-in with your opinion? SureFire 00:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on this matter. Roger Hui 01:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NY Times

Okay, if the Room Number 204 is the room, I will put that.

Some may be confused by the NY Times graphics. I understood that the Times lumped student deaths with professor deaths with the total "death" figures. Also, I believe what is implied is that not all of the kids were present in class, hence the reason why the number of survivors + dead does not add up to the number of registered students (and add the fact that professors were added with the dead). WhisperToMe 03:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you have a more up to date source (E.G. a source mentioning more known survivors), that would be appreciated. WhisperToMe 03:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The NY Times graphics you cited doesn't seem credible. See my comments at Talk:Liviu_Librescu#Class_room_number. Roger Hui 03:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I found this http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/interactives/vatechshootings/shootings_timeline.html - So I can cross-check the details :) WhisperToMe 05:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Crap! It's not the same kind of map. Lemme see if I can find a diagram like it... WhisperToMe 05:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found this: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/guns_in_america/html/virginia_tech/vt_shooting_intro.html

Go to "Campus Map" and you will find a new diagram. See the talk page for more details. WhisperToMe 06:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erdős number‎ categories nominated for deletion

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 17:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories by Erdos numbers

User:Mikkalai/By Erdos contains a very raw list made from remnants of categories and the log of the bot which implemented the deletion you opposed. Please join the discusion here to decide how to proceded. A clandestinely proud Erdos-Number-3-wikipedian `'Míkka 16:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the Erdos Number categories

Recently, as you know, the categories related to Erdos Number were deleted. There are discussions and debates across several article talk pages (e.g. the Mathematics WikiProject Talk page. I've formally requested a deletion review towards overturning the deletion, at this deletion review log item.

P.S., to a chessplayer, the diagrams look very confusing :-) What, those are solutions for "most Queens and Knights that don't attack each other"? Pete St.John 21:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I am disappointed over the deletion and tire of the whole issue. I do wish you luck in your attempts at overturning. The diagrams on my user page are indeed all unique solutions to the Queens and Knights problem. You can get more information by following the example link. Roger Hui 21:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually, I think "tired of the whole issue" is exactly why they win. So I'll just quote you as an example :-) I'm sorry this sucks but since hew & cry decides alot of practical issues, outside of the subject matter of mathematics but sometimes concerning mathematicians, I"m raising some hew and cry. Pete St.John —Preceding comment was added at 21:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and sympathize, but there are not enough hours in the day for me to fight over everything that I am disappointed about. Roger Hui 21:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APL function symbols

Hello, Roger Hui. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APL function symbols.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Cybercobra (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iota missing on IBM 2741 APL keyboard image?

Hi Roger. In the image of the IBM 2741 APL keyboard layout used in the IBM 2741 article, I think it's missing an Greek IOTA over the "I". Shift-"I" should give an IOTA for APL. That's my recollection from the 1960s. Is the image a trick? --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, on the IBM 2741 shift i is iota. However, I have no idea how to go about correcting the image on the IBM 2741 page. Roger Hui (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Roger. The whole mnemonic mechanism of the keys is hardly forgotten after forty some odd years. "i" = IOTA, "k" = (kw)QUOTE, "e" = EPSILON, etc. I even had to use APL\1130 with the three-case-shift. No, one doesn't readily know how to alter the image and get it accepted again on WP. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Roger, I wrote to the uploader of the image and he uploaded a new correct image. Bests. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mock-Up

Charles Hallam Brenner (b. 1945) is an American mathematician who is the originator of forensic mathematics.

He received a BS from Stanford University in 1967 and a Ph.D. in number theory from UCLA in 1984.

Brenner was also participated in the implementation of APL\360, and implemented the transpose and rotate primitive functions.

GA Thanks

This user helped promote Enrico Fermi to good article status.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Enrico Fermi, which has recently become a GA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Erdős number information

Hi! Thank you for all of your contributions! :) I noticed that there's this guy going around Wikipedia deleting Erdős numbers from articles, which I think is unjustifiable. I just reverted one such deletion, explaining why. Your point of view on the matter would be greatly appreciated.

Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain

Please explain why you removed the |access-date= parameter in this edit? Debresser (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The date is not that relevant as the URL points to an image of an article in an old journal; the reference includes the full citation.
• I’d added that date myself in the original edit.
Roger Hui (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I think it is always good to have it. It exists for a reason. Thanks for your reply. Debresser (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:APLparen.png

Thanks for uploading File:APLparen.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:DFSPsimplex.png

Thanks for uploading File:DFSPsimplex.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:DFSPprog2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:DFSPprog2.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:DFSPsimplex.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DFSPsimplex.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kenneth E. Iverson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Whitney. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid the excessive use of quotations from non-free works

Please don't add so many quotations from non-free works, like you did on Kenneth E. Iverson. We aim to be freely reusable by anyone, and excessive quotations from non-free content gets in the way of that mission. — Diannaa (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on this topic transferred to Talk:Kenneth_E._Iverson. Roger Hui (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Roger Hui. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:KEI&ATW NYC 1989-08.png

Thanks for uploading File:KEI&ATW NYC 1989-08.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 06:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:KEI with ATW NY Aug 1989.png

Thanks for uploading File:KEI with ATW NY Aug 1989.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 06:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:KEI with ATW NY Aug 1989.png

Thanks for uploading File:KEI with ATW NY Aug 1989.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:KEI&Hui.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:KEI&Hui.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Roger Hui. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited I. P. Sharp Associates, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Whitney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:APL developers.jpg

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

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

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The image is owned by Iverson Estates and permission for use was granted by Iverson Estate. What sort of proof do you need? Roger Hui (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Kei younger.jpg

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

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

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The image is owned by Iverson Estates and permission for use was granted by Iverson Estate. What sort of proof do you need? Roger Hui (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:APL developers.jpg

You uploaded, File:APL developers.jpg, where you either stated or implied that you had permission of a third party to upload it; or that evidence of such permission would be provided on request.

Unless there's some record of that permission, it's harder to confirm if any given permission is genuine. Wikipedia currently needs the permission to be explicitly proven at the time of upload, and recorded in the OTRS permission queue, for this reason.

Please read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, which advises on how to confirm permissions you obtained from a third party.

It is also advisable to ask the third-party what source attribution they desire, as opposed to marking the image as having been "sent personally".

If permission is not confirmed, and recorded as detailed above, the media may have to be removed so that Wikipedia stays in compliance with copyright law and policy in some jurisdictions.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kei younger.jpg

You uploaded, File:Kei younger.jpg, where you either stated or implied that you had permission of a third party to upload it; or that evidence of such permission would be provided on request.

Unless there's some record of that permission, it's harder to confirm if any given permission is genuine. Wikipedia currently needs the permission to be explicitly proven at the time of upload, and recorded in the OTRS permission queue, for this reason.

Please read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, which advises on how to confirm permissions you obtained from a third party.

It is also advisable to ask the third-party what source attribution they desire, as opposed to marking the image as having been "sent personally".

If permission is not confirmed, and recorded as detailed above, the media may have to be removed so that Wikipedia stays in compliance with copyright law and policy in some jurisdictions.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Roger Hui. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take part in a survey

Hi Roger Hui

We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.

Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.

As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.

Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eXJcEhLKioNHuJv

Thanks

Avi

Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy --Avi gan (talk) 06:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Euler's identity

There are some discussions currently at Talk:Euler's identity that might be of interest to you.
TheSeven (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Schlesinger

Hi, Roger. I’ve been searching for a source that says when Joe Schlesinger died. The CBC stories don’t specify. I don’t think a date should be added until we have a source. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John M. Scholes

Hi, Thanks for the page you created! I had done the same but it had been moved to Draft space because of lack of references. I think I have repaired this problem, but it's still (more than before) a draft "under construction". Feel free to take any of the material I've collected there: Draft:John_Scholes_(software_engineer). - — MFH:Talk 02:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:John Scholes.tiff

Thanks for uploading File:John Scholes.tiff. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Scholes2011.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Scholes2011.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 18:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Direct functions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cache (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Programming Languages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joe Armstrong (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Help request for APL navbox.

Good day Mr. Hui.

Thank you so much for thanking me today, for my edit today, to the John Scholes article, which thanks appears in my notifications. That is most considerate of you.

I seek your help on another APL-related matter, regarding the APL navbox Template:APL programming language.

I recently subdivided subsection "Organizations" into two more precise groups. I desire also to subdivide subsection "People" into two or more groups, perhaps somewhat as I did in Template:Lisp programming language. Unfortunately, I lack adequate domain knowledge of APL to do this, for now.

However, you poses APL domain knowledge in abundance. Some day, if you find some spare time, could you, below, propose a one-level grouping schema, with personal assignments (last names are enough), for subsection "People", that will be useful to Wikipedia users researching APL?

If your proposal fits the sorts of schemas used in other similar navboxes, I will implement it promptly. If not, I will seek clarification here so I can better understand your intent, and do the job correctly, without wasted edits.

Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter.

Have a productive week, and happy holidays.

Jerryobject (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. It is true that I have domain knowledge about APL, but for that reason I am reluctant to touch the APL pages: (a) To create a new APL-related page or to correct existing APL pages would require a lot of effort, more than I can devote or willing to devote at this time; and (b) Since I am editing Wikipedia under my real name and I am known to APL people, I have to be careful not to give offense (even if I am telling the truth as I see it). For example, I am co-writing an APL paper similar in content to what might appear in Wikipedia, and so far it has taken 27 months and over 100 pages.

The APL pages that I have created or edited extensively (Kenneth E. Iverson, John M. Scholes, Direct function, etc.) are topics about which I really do have exhaustive knowledge, are self-contained, and can be adequately covered without excessive length. As it is, I estimate that those pages took me a few months in total. -- Roger Hui (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Scholes.tiff listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:John Scholes.tiff, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Programming Languages, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jack Little and Daniel Ingalls (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

SQL ^{Query me!} 00:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Roger Hui (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is a case of mistaken or confused identity. I am an active and positive contributor to Wikipedia. Even a cursory examination of the User Contributions for User:Roger_Hui would reveal that in over 15 years in Wikipedia I have never engaged in behaviour that warrant the "nuclear option" of an indefinite block. Please unblock this account forthwith.
-- Roger Hui (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per below. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the reviewing admin, or checkuser - I found this account, and NicholasHui to be

Technically indistinguishable via the checkuser tool. 02:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, User:SQL, I submit that the checkuser tool is inadequate in this case. I am not NicholasHui, and even a casual examination of at Special:Contributions/Roger_Hui and Special:Contributions/NicholasHui would show that the edit patterns are unrelated. Am I quilty by having the same IP address as NicholasHui?
-- Roger Hui (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to open multiple unblock requests. I've converted this request to a comment. An uninvolved checkuser will review the technical evidence from our system logs, and will make a determination on this block (and, is welcome to unblock without consulting me, if I got it wrong). SQL ^{Query me!} 02:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:SQL, methinks you have been too quick to apply an indefinite block on me. I am disturbed that such a severe and permanent (?) restriction can be applied to a long-time Wikipedia contributor apparently with so little safeguard. For example, if I am inclined to mischief, would I be so foolish as to use my real name on Wikipedia? -- Roger Hui (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you edit on the same internet connection? TonyBallioni (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like User:NicholasHui and I have the same internet connection. Is that some sort of Wikipedia crime? Please consider the following evidence/indications, which admittedly requires human judgment and not an automatic determination such as checkuser:

- I use my real name as my Wikipedia account name.

- I have been a Wikipedia editor in good standing for over 15 years.

- Check Special:Contributions/Roger_Hui; check https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Roger_Hui.

- Check the pages Kenneth E. Iverson, Direct functions, and John M. Scholes, to which I was the main contributor. Their ORES scores are 5.29, 4.65, and 4.01, respectively, with the first two scores being "Good Article" quality according to ORES.

- Check the construction of my user page User:Roger_Hui.

Ask yourselves, if I have the skills and knowledge to do the above, why would I engage in WP:Sockpuppetry or other subterfuge? I would have to be insane, which I can assure you that I am not. (Hmm, that would be an interesting variant of the Turing test.)

-- Roger Hui (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You didn’t answer my question. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't already, read WP:SOCKBLOCK about moving forward. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni, I am at a loss re how to answer your question to your satisfaction. I have read WP:SOCKBLOCK per Bagumba's sugguestion.

- I am a mathematician and computer scientist (see APL Since 1978, published in the Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages) who knows little about the internet. As far as I am concerned I turn on my computer and I am on the internet, and that situation has not changed for at least 15 years.

- I have looked at NicholasHui's talk page and the indefinite block placed on his account since 2020-04-24. Since that time he has (obviously) not been making any edits on en.wikipedia.org; since that time he has apparently been making positive and useful edits on simple.wikipedia.org. Since that time, apparently unnoticed by anyone to be engaged in WP:Sockpuppetry, I (User:Roger_Hui) have been making positive and useful edits, and only positive and useful edits, on en.wikipedia.org. If I were inclined towards malice, wouldn't that have been a golden opportunity to engage in all sorts of destruction?

- Quoting from the User:TonyBallioni page: I’m a firm believer that we are fundamentally here to build an encyclopedia and that our content work is the reason for our existence. A fair-minded assessment of my contributions would reveal that I am, in my own small way, building an encyclopedia (see esp. the three pages cited above), and contributing to the content work.

- Quoting from WP:SOCKBLOCK: an account that makes the same edits as a different blocked account, has the same linguistic peculiarities and the same general interests may remain blocked under the "quacks like a duck" test. A cursory examination of Special:Contributions/NicholasHui shows that I have not made the same edits as User:NicholasHui, nor have the same interests, nor have the same linguistic peculiarities.

-- Roger Hui (talk) 06:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could just answer the question, rather than writing paragraphs not answering it. You’d probably be unblocked by now if you had. It’s not a difficult one. Like NRP below, I’m open to unblocking here, but the indignation at having to explain why you share the same internet connection as someone with the same name isn’t winning you friends. I’m assuming there is a simple answer, but as there appears to be a connection having it public so that this doesn’t happen again is best. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There can be any number of simple and innocent explanations why User:Roger_Hui and User:NicholasHui share the same internet connection: Perhaps we are of the same social unit? Perhaps we connect to the internet using the same hardware, the same wire? Note the choice of words: You said, originally, "... why you edit on the same internet connection"; I am saying, "share the same internet connection". Your original phrasing implies that I have a choice in the matter. (I am encouraged that you are finally using the phrase "share the same internet connection". Perhaps you are starting to understand.) I can only control what I do, and the evidence, if you care to look, is overwhelming that the edits by User:Roger_Hui have been positive and useful.

The following text is probably not going to help my unblock case, but I need to get it off my chest and have it on the record:

User talk:TonyBallioni, I find your attitude not helpful. You are telling me that I have "indignation", you are telling me that I am not "winning friends". 0: I am here not interested in winning friends; I am just trying to get my account unblocked. 1: Indignation? Your word, not mine. In my responses, have I used angry words? Have I used sarcasm? Have I been uncivil? Have I introduce factors unrelated to the unblocking appeal? This is not the first time I have an extended discussion with a Wikipedia admin. In the Talk Page of the Kenneth E. Iverson article I interacted with User:Diannaa, another admin, on why she deleted substantial portions of text that I composed with considerable care. I must say that User:Diannaa conducted herself in a way that better exemplified qualities that I hope every serious person on Wikipedia is trying to cultivate.

I am concerned that my account can be and is blocked suddenly and indefinitely with no warning. I am concerned at having to spend my time reading multiple pages on Wikipedia procedures and constructing an appeal. When I can be making positive and useful contributions to Wikipedia.

-- Roger Hui (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you’re going to be a jerk, I’m not going to unblock you. It’s that simple. If another admin wants to, I give my permission as a CU to do so as I think there’s a likely explanation here, but your inability to say Yeah, that guy lives with me or something of the sort when asked is going to raise questions anytime a CU is involved. It’s a reasonable question, and we usually ask it in cases like this. SQL, FYI per our discussion last night. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see this discussion has deteriorated into name-calling, and not from my side. May I suggest that you as an admin tread more kindly and more patiently? I am not an admin, and I am not familiar with preferred responses in cases like this. (I am probably not the only one in such cases.) I am also not familiar with Wikipedia jargon and introducing them further confuses me. For example, what is CU?

Also, do you not see that there could be a privacy issue involved here? The answer to your question, "Can you explain why you edit on the same internet connection?", may not be as simple as you think.

-- Roger Hui (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you would prefer I say that I will not unblock rude people who treat people trying to help resolve their problems poorly, I can phrase it that way. The template above explains it: a CU is a user who has access to technical logs on Wikipedia. Typically users are not warned when they are blocked by a CheckUser. Both SQL and I are CUs (as is NRP below), which means we can see the technical logs you use to connect to Wikipedia. You connect from the same two internet connections as the other account, have the same name, but have a different device. This suggests that you are either the same person or are related. As one was blocked, SQL blocked you. On closer examination, I caught that you edited from different devices and figured it was probably family or something of the sort. I wanted to confirm so I asked the question, I don’t really see it as a privacy issue when people are both editing under real names. I always ask this question because some people will admit it’s their blocked account, and in those cases we don’t unblock. I assumed you would say “yeah, that’s my [relative of some sort]” and I’d unblock you and we’d be on our way. Instead, I got paragraphs that didn’t answer what I was asking and lectures on how bad I was at what I’m doing.

So, yes. I think there is a reasonable case to be made to unblock you. If someone else wants to, I’ve given them my permission to do so, which is required as this is a CheckUser block. I would have done it myself last night if you’d answered my question. Anyway, I’ve unblocked now as I agree you’re probably different people after this discussion. We could have come to this resolution 12 hours ago, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding with the following before you amended your last comment saying that you have now unblocked: "Thank you for your explanation. I will refrain from further comment until I see what happens with my unblock request." Since you have now unblocked, I thank you for that.

I dare say I have learned something from this interaction. Perhaps the WP:Sockpuppetry page can be amended to be clearer and more explicit on how one is to appeal a block for that reason. But I leave that to people with more knowledge and energy.

-- Roger Hui (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest unblocking. I've always dismissed the possibility that they're the same person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After looking into the above information, I would agree. I would also say that it's not rude or unreasonable to refuse to divulge personal information unnecessary to prove your case, digitally or in real life. If anything, it's smart. Tyrone Madera (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Hui is deceased as of Oct 16, and User:NicholasHui is still active. It was mistaken identity, as Roger maintained. Thanks to Roger for improving Wikipedia over such a long period of time. -- GreenC 20:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Alfred Aho

On 3 April 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Alfred Aho, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]