User talk:TakuyaMurata

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
See the page history to retrieve old talks.

Contents

Category of bimodules[edit]

Information.svg

A tag has been placed on Category of bimodules, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo, or other unlikely search term.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Question on Japanese name[edit]

Hello, TakuyaMurata. In Yoshiharu Kohayakawa, what is the surname? Yolaf.TZ (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Never mind... It's Kohayakawa (here on the English-WP, sometimes the order of Japanese names is equal to what is on the Japanese-WP, and other time it's different). It confuses me. :D Yolaf.TZ (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Plans[edit]

I know that a few mathematics editors would like the WMF to take over. I don't think that's going to happen, and I doubt that you would like the result. First, I want to say that leaving mathematics to editors is not leaving it to "outsiders". That's leaving it to insiders. Second, the WMF usually takes on projects that are too complicated and too large for individual volunteers, or projects that must be done now and no volunteer is willing or able to do. Flow and VisualEditor both fall into the "too complicated and too large" category; mathematics rendering does not fall into either. Thirdly, historically, most math work has been done by volunteers. As a result of this history, the real question isn't merely a neutral "Why doesn't the WMF do this?" Instead, the real question is "Why doesn't the WMF take control away from the volunteers who have been doing this for years, regardless of what those volunteers say?"

As a practical matter, if the volunteers who have been working on math rendering all said that they do not wish to continue, and no others were willing to begin, then the WMF might eventually take it over. But the volunteers are still active, and therefore I do not expect the WMF to try to take the project away from them. I don't believe that the WMF has any formal opinion about how mathematics rendering ought to be done. But from the informal water cooler chat that I overhear, if they had to make a decision today, the result would probably be to kill MathJax and then do nothing else for a long while due to lack of resources and a belief that serving PNGs, while suboptimal, doesn't cause the site to crash or otherwise represent an emergency. Therefore this is my conclusion: if your ultimate goal is to keep MathJax, then your goal is also to encourage volunteers to support math rendering themselves, at least for the foreseeable future. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF): Thank you very much for the reply, which I wasn't expecting. Nothing personal, but I don't think you have a understanding of the problem at all. Maybe it goes beyond your competence? For instance, the math rendering belongs to the category "too complicated and too large"; saying otherwise shows your lack of understanding. Why else do you think no one seems to be able to fix the broken system? The answer to the first question (why the WMF take-over) is because it is of interest to the WMF if it wants to keep the editors happy and attract the readers, the task that should not be left to the "outsider" volunteers. You said "I don't believe that the WMF has any formal opinion about how mathematics rendering ought to be done." and that's the problem I'm talking about. "No plan" is not a good plan. -- Taku (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you think that "take away MathJax and replace it with PNGs" a desirable plan? If the WMF takes over now, that is the most likely plan. Perhaps "no plan" would be preferable to that plan.
Math rendering does not belong to the category of "too complicated and too large" because it isn't. It might be too large for one person to do, part-time, in a couple of months, but it does not require a large team of engineers. As several editors have pointed out in these discussions, MathJax is added to websites all the time merely by inserting a couple of lines of code into the HTML.
Also, I have my doubts about how much the appearance of the mathematics articles (or their content) attract readers. The math geeks I know all prefer other sites, and the non-math geeks complain that Wikipedia's articles are incomprehensible. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@Whatamidoing (WMF): I had a feeling that we would go nowhere; this reminds me of those endless tiring phone call to the call center. I and (presumably the others) would much prefer to deal with someone who is actually competent and can get something done (what I want is not complain but see some action). As for the concrete "plan", the math editor community has already comes up with one; it is up to the WMF to implement it or not (it's not something for the editors). The last part of your reply is most disturbing; I wish you are joking. Which other website are you talking? Wikipedia articles on math topics are read and edited rather heavily. It is embarrassing that Wikipedia has poor software support for math. Or so I thought, but I guess you don't share the same feeling. But maybe it really speaks the truth. You want to make Wikipedia less geeky and we're obstacles to achieve that. That's the truth isn't it? I wish I misunderstood your message. -- Taku (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I certainly don't want a "less geeky" encyclopedia. If WP:N were up to me, I'd be blowing up piles of articles about minor actors and individual television episodes and songs about which nothing little more can be said than "it was kind of popular for two weeks six years ago". Also, articles about allegedly important university professors that are sourced only to their employers' websites.
I will have to ask again for the names of favored math sites, since I don't remember them any longer. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ seems to be the most popular. It also depends on what your interests are, of course. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@Whatamidoing (WMF): Thank you for getting back to me. By "math", we was thinking of professional math. The site mathworld is a bit of joke as far as topics on professional-levels are concerned; it is the site for the general public (non-geeks.) I would view sites like encyclopedia of mathematics, or planetmath or nLab to be Wikipedia competitors on the math topics that are not of interest to the general public. Against those, Wikipedia tends to win, judging by the number of times Wikipedia articles are cited in the discussion sites like mathoverflow. Not having the updated software support for math can be considered complacent; I think someone should be responsible/accountable for this and, as I said, it is part of the job of the WMF. -- Taku (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hi Taku, I don't know if this interjection will help clear up confusion, or just create more, but I'll do my best.

I see from your userpage you are on semi-wikibreak, so I will collapse this so that you do not return to find a book  :-)

First of all, I suggest you take to heart the core of what Whatamidoing is trying to tell you, which is this: if and when the volunteer-math-related-software-folks give up on wiki-math and stop volunteering, that is when the WMF will step in... because they prefer, when possible, to leave stuff to the volunteers, as is proper. I believe you are missing the second part of her message: SHOULD it occur, that the WMF takes over math-rendering-software, the outcome will be to drastically curtail the goal, and to drastically curtail the engineering-resources. Specifically, if the WMF is forced to be in charge of math-rendering, they (the WMF) will assign one part-time engineer the job of "serve all equations as PNGs pre-rendered on home PCs and then uploaded to Commons", which is very much not what you (Taku) would want to happen, and far more crucially, in such a force-to-take-over-scenario, they (the WMF) will change the overall goal of wikipedia-math-related-articles from competing with Professional-Graduate-University-Level-Serious-Math-Sites-Like-Planetmath to the drastically different goal of competing with General-Interest-Undergrad-Firendly-Consumer-Oriented-Fun-And-Awesome-Math-Sites-Like-Mathworld-By-Wolfram, or perhaps even worse, dumbing down the math articles to compete with Aimed-At-Elementary-Schoolkids-Games-Disguised-With-A-Thin-Layer-Of-Arithmetic-Sites-Like-Coolmath. Just as with the change from online-math-rendering to offline-math-rendering-via-PNG-upload, you will NOT like (as I understand it) the changes in the goals of math-support on wikipedia, that will most definitely occur (per my own experience and per WMF's assertion via their liason Whatamidoing), if and when the WMF feels they are forced to take over math-support, which they will do if and only if the volunteer-math-software-hackers literally give up.

  Does this make any sense? Whatamidoing is not trying to tell you that the WMF will not take over math-support, because the WMF could care less about math-support; she's trying to tell you, that if you succeed in your tactical goal, of getting the WMF to take over math-support, that you will be shooting yourself in the strategic foot, because your REAL goal of improving professional-level-online-math-rendering-support will not merely fail to be accomplished via WMF takeover, but quite the opposite, it will be sent back to the dark ages (PNG uploads) and quite likely permanently (goal-change from beat-planetmath to instead beat-wolfram-mathworld). In other words, the WMF does care about math-support, which is WHY they don't want to take over math-support! They know they would 'ruin' it, as far as professional-grade on-the-fly-rendering goes, if they had to (forced by circumstances) take over. By this line of reasoning, quoth No Plan.... unquoth counterintuitively is exactly the right plan.

  I hope this explanation is clear. My constructive advice to you is that you ought to change your tactics; instead of appealing to the WMF to "take over" math-rendering-support, and spend millions of bucks in a super-project a la WP:FLOW (which I will note is still not working and maybe that gives you a further hint why Whatamidoing&WMF are resisting your clear calls to have them try their hand at far more complex professional math-rendering software)... you should instead focus your energy on recruiting new volunteer math-software-engineers. That does not mean that you cannot get some WMF moolah for this new tactic; if you can find a software engineer willing to improve the volunteer-driven-math-support-codebase, then you can apply for a WMF grant, and get some money to sweeten the pot a little for the said software engineer. It won't be millions of bucks, but a few thousand bucks for a year of weekends, might make the difference between being able to find a volunteer engineer, and not being able to.

  A seemingly-similar but fundamentally different tactic, which for reasons I will mention shortly I most definitely do NOT recommend, would be to try and get some grant-monies to fund more intense work by existing volunteers; the advantage there is that they are already known to be interested. The disadvantage, obviously (to me at least), is that if you convert them from being pure volunteers to being partially-compensated, they might burn out on volunteering, once the grant-money runs out, an unintended side-effect. So I suggest you find an outsider, to entice into a thousand hours of work (or so) in exchange for a few thousand bucks of bonus-cash (aka $2/hr to $9/hr ... still mostly a volunteer!).

  Most importantly of all, don't waste those thousand-hours-of-dev-time, trying to re-implement the wheel, and building a Grand New Software Ssytem, written from scratch with the highest expectations. That will fail miserably. Spend those thousand-hours-of-dev-effort, on the top-priority-tasks in the math-software-wikiverse, as defined and agreed upon by TWO groups: first, the heavy users of math-software for article-editing, and second, the existing volunteers that hack on the math-rendering-codebase. The reasoning here is that you want the result of the thousand-hours-of-dev-work to be 100% compatible with and 100% maintained by the existing all-volunteer-team, so they HAVE to be given a large say in how the thousand hours will be spent. You also do NOT want to offend your existing pure-volunteer-math-devs, by bringing in an outsider to 'clean up their mess'; instead, you want the situation to be perceived as (and in fact REALLY BE the actual intent) the recruiting of an employee, with the pure-volunteer-devs acting as the founders/managers/beneficiaries. This is not a difficult line to walk, as long as you are clear from the outset that 1) the new low-pay semi-volunteer dev is an employee, 2) the existing pure-volunteer devs are the bosses/managers of this new employee, and 3) the reason the new employee is being hired is because the existing codebase IS WORTH IMPROVING, and not because the existing codebase happens to have bugs or lack features. Finally, of course, you want to have the other 49% of the priority-setting-input come from the heavy users of the math-rendering-software (which in the tempEmployee/foundersBosses analogy fill the role of payingCustomers), so that the *specific* bugs that are fixed, and the *specific* features that are added, during that thousand hours of work by the tempEmployee, will be maximally useful to the article-editors for their work.

  (An aside on the gory details. You can set up the infrastructure however you like, but I suggest this: create a wiki-page that is a numbered list of potential priorities, briefly stated and they hyperlinked to some longer explanation where necessary, for instance entries like "idea#55 fix mathjax bugreport#1234" and also "idea#77 add mathjax support for inlin torus rendering feature". Once you have a list of ideas, bang-vote on them, but weight the bang-votes by edit-count for the payingCustomers and by commit-count-to-the-math-software-repos for the foundersBosses. Then, create a second wiki-page, which gives the same ideas (idea#77 and idea#55 and all the others), but this time ordered by their calculated-top-priority-scores. To calculate the *ordering* of the priority-list-page, that will end up being assigned (from the top down) as tasks to the temp-employee-slash-quasi-volunteer, the bang-votes for each priority-list-idea are added up, with 51% of the final score-total for each idea coming from commit-count-weighted bangvotes by math-devs and the other 49% score-total coming from edit-count-weighted bangvotes by math-editors. In cases where a single human is both a math-dev and also a math-editor, their input is simply double-counted, with weighted contributions to both the math-dev-51% and also the math-editor-49% portions of the idea-score; not-so-incidentally which will encourage math-devs to be editors and encourage math-editors to become devs. Rather than set a deadline for bangvotes followed by a hat-closure, just leave the idea-list open 24/7/365, so anybody is free to add a new idea, or change their bangvotes, and periodically re-calculate the score-totals, say once every couple of weeks or so; that way, if during the thousand-hour-timeframe it becomes obvious to everyone that top-priority idea#88 is technically unworkable for some previously-unforeseen reason, you can simply strike the bangvotes for it, which upon recalculation will demote idea#88 on the ordered-priority-list from the top position down to some nice-to-have-someday position further down the ordered-priority-list. See also approval voting, of which this scheme is a wiki-specific modification; you only need to "count" support-bangvotes when you weighted-recalculate the priority-list-ordering, in other words. People are free to comment and to oppose at this time and even to oppose forevermore if they wish, on specific ideas or on all ideas of a particular subset-class, but if the number of weighted-support-bangvotes remains high anyways despite the peer-pressure, then that specific idea may well become top-five-priority. To mitigate this possibility, if you want, you can work out some kind of weighted-subtraction-scheme for including some measure of the oppose-bangvotes in the scoring, like in WP:ARBCOM elections, but I believe that to be unnecessary, because the ideas with heavy support-bangvotes will rise to the top no matter what, and ideas with strong opposition will inherently not have enough support-bangvotes to do the same. End of the gory details.)

  Perhaps most importantly of all... if you do it right, when you set up the infrastructure of pure-volunteer-devs as foundersBosses and heavy article-editors as payingCustomers who work together to prioritize a list of low-hanging-fruit for the tempEmployee-slash-quasi-Volunteer to work on, you can repeat the process iteratively and indefinitely: the math-editors will have formed a strong working relationship with the math-hackers, and they will be able to jointly formulate a *second* priority-list for the *second* WMF grant, after the money in the first one runs out, and then a *third* grant and so on. Pretty soon, in this fashion, you'll have achieved your strategic goal, of getting solid software support for online-on-the-fly professional-grade math-rendering-support, baked into wikipedia. By contrast, if you keep asking for the WMF to take that work off your hands, they may just be forced to do it... but not in the way that you are wishing they would, quite the opposite in fact. Be careful what you wish for! If you want to "see some action" to improve math-support then your best bet is to shift your focus away from the WMF and take the bull by the horns with volunteer and quasi-volunteer devs; if you should be unlucky enough to ever "see some action" from the WMF itself, what you would end up seeing would be almost be the polar opposite of what you wish to occur. They are not the right people for this job, and luckily for all concerned, they know it. Taku, please do not make the mistake of thinking that since Whatamidoing is not personally competent to build some vast multi-million-dollar software system (what individual human is? no offense to User:Whatamidoing_(WMF) intended) that will fully and properly support professional-grade online-math-rendering, that you just need to escalate your helpdesk call to Jimbo, or failing that, to some other hypothetically-more-competent person, hiding somewhere deep in the bowels of the WMF, who can magically satisfy your wish. There is no such person; you are seeking a chimera. What you are hearing from Whatamidoing, is that the WMF simply flat-out CANNOT undertake, the job you are wishing them to do, in the way you wish them to do it. That is 100% correct, for the reasons I outlined above.

Hope this helps, appreciate your work on helping wikipedia improve, talk to you later. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and p.s. the correct goal for wikipedia methinks is to compete with planetmath et al, as our first priority, and then *expand* our capabilities and our feature-set, and *widen* our focus and our content-goals, so that we can also simultaneously and in addition, compete also with mathworld et al. (Someday we may even get so good and so broad that we can compete with cool-math.) But first things first, the initial goal of the process-iterations should be fixing up our planetmath-style features and our planetmath-style bugfixes. Once those are 90% done with no more low-hanging-fruit, future process-iterations can broaden our math-support so that we can effectively compete with mathworld, too. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
^^^^ This is exactly what you should read and take to heart. --Jorm (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Post-post-script, I also see from your userpage that you know Java and C and GoLang, so you know something about programming; I know some LaTeX and some Javascript and some PHP and some other languages that might be useful, if you decide to change tactics as I suggest above, I would be happy to help get you the ball rolling. I don't have time to become a full volunteer-math-dev, or a thousand-hour-quasi-compensated-volunteer-dev either, but as a heavy-math-article-reader it is in my own best interests to see the heavy-math-article-editors smiling and content. I'm happy to take a shot at "Fixing That Which Cannot[citation needed] Be Fixed" in the current codebase, in collaboration with you and the rest of the math-editors and math-devs already involved. Let me know if you want to discuss further, or whatever, when you return from your semi-break. Thanks for listening, talk to you later. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

In the news[edit]

I agree with you that In the news belongs at the top of the Main Page redesign, and have adjusted the design accordingly. Just a heads up, in case you'd like to see what it looks like. The Transhumanist 10:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Drugstore[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

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

No sources and the notice was added in February 2013

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 03:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Glossary of category theory[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Draft:Glossary of category theory, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Glossary of category theory. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Page 1 of Hartshorne.jpeg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Page 1 of Hartshorne.jpeg. 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. Steel1943 (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Page 1 of Hartshorne.jpeg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Page 1 of Hartshorne.jpeg. 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) 02:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Quantum Internet[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

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

pure speculation

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Damaging[edit]

I am not damaging the encyclopedia, if you had taken the time to actual see what the article was (and unfortunately is now) you would see that I have made several improvements. Stop treating articles as if they are your personal fiefdom. 99.241.166.168 (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You are making unnecessary format chages (in fact, a change from a good format to a bad one.) You can still fix errors or make format "improvement". But decreasing the formatting quality isn't really considered an improvement. -- Taku (talk)
What is wrong with Template:Mvar ...? Is it just that or does that include Template:Math ... too? 99.241.166.168 (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes that one too. Those templates should not be used, since they are ugly and also their use makes editing Wikipedia more difficult by requiring the editors to learn how to use them. -- Taku (talk) 12:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Ugly is a subjective term and I don't think they are that hard to learn. At any rate is this mentioned on some official style guide for math articles in wikipedia?? 99.241.166.168 (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not the only one who finds those templates make articles look unattractive; the main issue is that they put math formulae in a "wrong" font: i.e., the names of the variables or the functions appear in a font that is different from that of the surrounding texts. If you look at any professionally-done math textbooks, you will see how wrong this is. Also, it is well-known that the wikitexts with a lot of templates look like a program code and that this is a major factor that turns a potential contributor away. As for the policy and past discussion, see for instance Help:formula, Wikipedia:Rendering math and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2013/Jan #Destruction of .7B.7Bmath.7D.7D and similar templates. Everyone makes a mistake; please try to learn from it. -- Taku (talk) 07:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
First I read the page and it is clear that there is no consensus regarding which format is better. So just reversing my edit on that grounds does not seem justified since my edit was much more than just a style clean up. Second speaking of difficulty to learn, with html you get all these spaces you glue together with "nbsp" and that makes the actual code much worse than Template:Math ... because you can't use any spaces. 99.241.166.168 (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The consensus, if I am not mistaken, is that a mass change to templates is undesirable and unproductive. Do you disagree with me on this impression? I'm not against the cleanup and format improvement; I simply reverted whole changes since they are too large for close reviews. This is one of the reasons why the mass changes are not productive; it's hard to tell what is improved and what got damaged. Finally about the complexity: if a formula is complex, <math> is a good option in my view although on some browsers they don't render well (they look good on my browser). -- Taku (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
First, now you are saying they are too large for review, while before you objected to the nature of change (to Template:Math ... calling it ugly and whatnot. Second, when you suggest <math> it shows that you didn't bother to read my response above or examine the article in question. The problem is not the complexity of the formula, you made a claim that Template:Math ... was hard to learn and to edit, and I responded by saying that in plain html you need to constantly use "nbsp" to avoid breaking even small formulas. The result is that you get a very long block of continuous text without any spaces which is way harder to understand and edit than anything in Template:Math .... 99.241.166.168 (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The changes were too large to review and it is possible that I have undone some small improvements in the process; that's why you shouldn't make a large controversial single edit. In any case, my point still stands: the math templates are ugly and demands the editors to learn them, better not to use them. (And I'm not the only one who feels that way.) If the formula is complex, you should use<math>; so there is no need for nbsp. When '' suffices, there is no need for Template:Mvar ..... The issue is why you insists on using them. -- Taku (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
With html if you don't want breaks you have to use nbsp for every single space in that formula! That makes even very simple formulas to look hugely complicated when editing. Just go back to the page we started this argument on and look the code for the example. 99.241.166.168 (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I know that and the alternative <math> is thus preferable. -- Taku (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
So you think that <math> is better than Template:Math ...? I guess that is because it renders well on your machine. For the rest of us <math> looks like an ugly eye sore specially when it is just a few characters long. <math> should bereserved for display formulas (which is what I do), in text math should be either html or Template:Math ... which is a matter of taste since html is not simpler than Template:Math ... and ugliness aspect is subjective. 99.241.166.168 (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed you have reverted back all my recent edits (Hessian, Montgomery forms of elliptic curves). What you are doing is legislating taste, plain and simple. It is true that I have changed the format from html to Template:Math ... but in the process the article has had major improvements. So you had a html based format but poorly written article now you have Template:Math ... style improved article since neither of the formats is superior to the other this is unacceptable and borders on vandalism. I am reverting all your reversions and I ask you to refer this issue to be judged by someone else since I have no confidence in you to contain your bias. 99.241.166.168 (talk) 06:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm merely keeping the qualities of Wikipedia articles intact; of course you are free to improve the formatting of the article; but as I pointed out above, introducing the template mvar isn't an improvement. Damaging the articles amounts to vandalism and I have simply reverted vandalisms as all editors are encouraged to do. What you need to do is very simple: stop damaging Wikipedia articles; alternatively, please use '', which is standard and does not have the problem the template mvar. I'm not imposing my taste. Nothing wrong with the desire for improvement; but you're doing in a wrong way. -- Taku (talk) 07:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Missing source for File:Bonnard-the dining room in the country.jpg[edit]

As part of an effort to add machine readable meta-data it was noted that the above file may potentially be missing information about it's source. It would be appreciated if you could add this information to assist evlauation and re-use of the file.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of most popular given names for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of most popular given names is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most popular given names (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ~ Preceding post created by larsona //Talk// 04:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Gaitsgory-Lurie proof of Weil conjecture on Tamagawa numbers[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Gaitsgory-Lurie proof of Weil conjecture on Tamagawa numbers, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. JMHamo (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Susie Abromeit[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Susie Abromeit requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open![edit]

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

About many edits[edit]

You should use preview button,please edits at once.--Takahiro4 (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not which edits you are referring to. It might help to know that, on the history page, you can see the effect of several consecutive edits at once by selecting them together. -- Taku (talk) 03:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Carathéodory rank[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 103.6.159.72 (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

No, the result of the discussion was not to overturn the deletion. The result was to endorse the deletion and you decided to ignore that result because you didn't like it and substitute your preferred outcome instead. Recreating the page with exactly the same content is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. I have no problem with you recreating this page provided you include some more content than ""Carathéodory rank of a set is". And please stop adding comments to the DRV discussion, that discussion has been closed. Hut 8.5 07:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
We must be looking at the different discussion; regarding this, I have posted my comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 January 2. (The length of the page is irrelevant since the question is the legitimacy of the deletion.) -- Taku (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
What people have to follow is the closure of the discussion, not their own personal interpretation of consensus in a discussion. If you don't like this closure and want it changed then speak to the closing administrator or file something at WP:AN, although I don't think you're going to be taken terribly seriously at the latter venue. Hut 8.5 07:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
You're now continuing to be disruptive to prove a point. If you want to recreate the article with some actual content, do so. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy so we do not have to take in isolation the question of whether the deletion of the article was "legitimate"; we take all actions as a whole and look at what is best for the encyclopedia.
Continuing to post tendentious and pedantic arguments to the closed DRV is going to wind up with you getting blocked (see WP:IDHT). If you really, truly, genuinely think that I have closed the DRV outcome incorrectly and that it is beneficial to the encyclopedia that a six-word non-sentence should continue to exist in draft space for a further indeterminate period – not forgetting that you left it fallow for over eight months – then your next step is to open a listing at WP:AN for further review. I am not responsible if such a listing is found to be a further WP:POINT violation, however, and would instead point you at WP:DTS. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
This would sound childish but I didn't start it! The article was just a draft; it is incomplete by definition. This thing started because the admin "mistook" it as a test page; I merely wanted to point out an error and admins can't admit they are wrong. How pathetic! In any case, I will just move on; this is not worth my time. -- Taku (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

C. rank[edit]

Can you put together a complete sentence on this topic? I'm a decent mathematician (PhD in a related field, published in SODA) but this is well outside of my area and I can't write something that defines the term clearly. One sentence, ideally with a source, will prevent the (rather bogus IMO) deletion of the draft article. With the source, you could move it to mainspace as a stub--it's not the most mainstream term in the world, but there are plenty of sources which let it meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I can and I'm planning to complete the draft in the future (it's just a matter of a library trip to find a ref.) In any case, the issue is whether the speedy deletion criterion applies or not, not really math. -- Taku (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TakuyaMurata. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 09:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

FTFF and redirects[edit]

Hey, just a heads up: you reverted an article that was AfD'd and merge-redirected. Yes, I only noticed it now. Yes, it was 7 years after it was decided, but you literally just...reverted the article to the pile of mess it was. There's really nothing new there from its AfD ... jeez, nearly 10 years ago? I mean, I'm not going to rain on the parade here, but maintaining an independent article here isn't worth it.  RasputinAXP  05:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Two things: (1) there is actually no content on FTFF in Macintosh Finder; so the redirect is a disservice to the readers. (2) I looked at the AfD; the outcome seems to be "no consensus" rather than merger/redirect. I can agree to bring the article to AfD. -- Taku (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Since I was the closing admin, I can explain the reasoning for merge-and-redirect: the primary pile of "keep" votes were SPA's (do people still say sockpuppets?) sent from Ars. The information contained in FTFF is referenced in a single line in the article it redirects to. That's pretty much all the actual information necessary on the topic. That the criticism section on the Finder article was edited down is roughly irrelevant (IMO). It's there.  RasputinAXP  03:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for trying to expose RHaworth.--MML Master (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Borel's theorem on classifying spaces[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Draft:Borel's theorem on classifying spaces, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Borel's theorem on classifying spaces and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Borel's theorem on classifying spaces during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Artin's criterion[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Draft:Artin's criterion, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Artin's criterion and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Artin's criterion during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Hodge spectral sequence[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Draft:Hodge spectral sequence, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Hodge spectral sequence and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Hodge spectral sequence during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Indefinite block[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for attempting to harass other users. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Following up on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 January 24, I noted that here, you wrote to another editor that his deleting your abandoned seven-word draft page was "a capital crime", after previously writing that he was "forcing [you] to take some appropriate actions". I interpret this as a death threat; and in any case it indicates that you are temperamentally unsuited to participating in a collaborative project. Your ability to edit Wikipedia has therefore been revoked.  Sandstein  14:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

TakuyaMurata (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I have never made a death threat; I just wanted to warn the user in the strongest possible language. The "actions" therefore refer to something more formal like deletion review, nothing physical. Finally, I regret the misunderstanding I might have caused and I intend to remove the comments there. -- Taku (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I agree with Sandstein that you are temperamentally unsuited to participating in a collaborative project. PhilKnight (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

As the editor who first pointed out the "capital crime" comment during the DRV, I feel some measure of responsibility and I find this block excessive. His comment was hyperbolic, yes, but it's not a death threat and I doubt anyone understood it as one. Taku's been here in 2002 and shouldn't be indefinitely blocked over this. I think a warning would be sufficient in this case. @Sandstein and PhilKnight: I'd like to unblock Taku on the understanding that he's been warned. Mackensen (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

No objection from me. PhilKnight (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
No objection in principle either, but I think that the view of the user at whom the threat was directed, RHaworth (talk · contribs), should be sought also.  Sandstein  12:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks; I've unblocked. Inasmuch as RHaworth never requested a block and never reacted to Taku's second posting (in fact he's given every appearance of treating this with the lack of importance it deserved), I think we're done here. Taku, please be more careful and considerate in your interactions with other Wikipedians. Mackensen (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually some problematic users like RH don't deserve respect; they need to be expelled from Wikipedia so actual editors can get to the work of building the encyclopedia. I will retire for time being (I don't have time to play the game) but hopefully, I can/will come back when the project becomes more hospitable to content creators. -- Taku (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Every editor sets the terms of their own participation. You're unblocked and free to edit. Mackensen (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Not to reply to this, but there is some ranting now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Artin's criterion. -- Taku (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I was tempted to re-block Taku for his comment about me above. The incredible thing is that that all I have done to Taku is delete Draft:Carathéodory rank (36 bytes long and not edited since 2015-04-10) and Draft:Principal orbit type theorem (39 bytes long and not edited since 2014-07-19). His reactions to both deletions were just totally over the top. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @RHaworth: The byte amount isn't relevant; shoplifting is a crime regardless of the dollar amount. The issue is that you lack the understanding that some editors are here to build the encyclopedia. You are clearly here for the other reasons (I don't speculate on specifics) and I cannot work with someone who doesn't share the same goal. You also moved Draft:exact couple to the main space; perhaps you thought it was complete. It wasn't (especially the last section) and now you need to finish it. -- Taku (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Narasimhan–Seshadri theorem[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Draft:Narasimhan–Seshadri theorem, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Narasimhan–Seshadri theorem and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Narasimhan–Seshadri theorem during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Haruka Kohara for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Haruka Kohara is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haruka Kohara until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DAJF (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sam Rosen (actor)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Sam Rosen (actor) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no assertion or establishment of notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Moduli stack of elliptic curves[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Draft:Moduli stack of elliptic curves, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Moduli stack of elliptic curves and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Moduli stack of elliptic curves during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Lester Randolph Ford Award[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Lester Randolph Ford Award, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hasteur (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Information icon Welcome, and thank you for contributing the page Draft:Lester Randolph Ford Award to Wikipedia. While you have added the page to the English version of Wikipedia, the article is not in English. We invite you to translate it into English. It has been listed at Pages Needing Translation, but if it is not translated within two weeks, the article will be listed for deletion. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Quillen metric[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Draft:Quillen metric, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Quillen metric and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Quillen metric during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Lester Randolph Ford Award[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Draft:Lester Randolph Ford Award, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lester Randolph Ford Award and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Lester Randolph Ford Award during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 09:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed alternative to the MFDs for advanced mathematics stubs[edit]

Since you've significed you won't have time to do any work to get these drafts above the bare minimum necessary in the forseeable future, I'd like to offer you an alternative to MFD/CSD nominations across the board: If I come across one of these, I will move it to your WP:USERSPACE and drop you a note letting you know what I've moved so that you can work on improving it at your leisure. Would that work for you? If I don't hear back in 24 hours, I intend to use this as opposed to MFDing them. Hasteur (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

So you're offering me a cease-fire? There is no way; we need to keep fighting until the end of the time. Unfortunately I cannot back-down since if I do, that would be morale-boost for the deletionist movement. -- Taku (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
No, I was offering a compromise, but go ahead and make it a "you vs me" debate, because you'll lose that argument and get all the drafts deleted. Hasteur (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't start the dispute; I'm simply defending Wikipedia from deletionist attacks. -- Taku (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Sam Rosen (actor) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sam Rosen (actor) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Rosen (actor) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- Tavix (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:GKM variety[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Draft:GKM variety, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:GKM variety and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:GKM variety during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft[edit]

I take the firm view that everything in the draft: namespace must have an AfC tag to ensure that the bots will pick it up if it becomes a stale draft. I have therefore moved Draft:Linear algebraic group–Lie algebra correspondence to User:TakuyaMurata/Linear algebraic group–Lie algebra correspondence. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Please just don't take such a stance; that's clearly against the community consensus. The draft namespace is not only for AfC pages. -- Taku (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:GKM variety[edit]

Hello TakyuaMurata, in regards to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:GKM variety, the page under discussion (Draft:GKM variety) was moved to your sandbox, where it is still available (see Special:PermaLink/721707163). There is nothing else to do on that MFD. I am reclosing it with a more detailed explanation. — xaosflux Talk 18:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Please check the page. RH is lying to you. RH is not telling the truth; also, he cannot just move a draft page to the user page. -- Taku (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm leaving this to the two of you to work out. Suffice it to say, administrators can move pages between namespaces (such as draft->user); whether or not we should is a more subjective matter. — xaosflux Talk 02:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Frobenius splitting[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Draft:Frobenius splitting, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Frobenius splitting and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Frobenius splitting during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Mackey functor[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Draft:Mackey functor, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Mackey functor and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Mackey functor during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Drafts[edit]

You can seek community consensus quite easily without using the RfC template. I suggest this topic is not ripe for RfC yet, and you will get useful feedback without that mechanism. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is it not ripe for RfC? I'm not looking for mere inputs but I really want the community to work on some specific carefully-worded standards for draft articles. If you think I'm not doing RfC right procedure-wise, you can make necessary changes. -- Taku (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I think you should just try to discuss it first. You are likely to get good response from editors watching that page without needing to draw in other editors. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I think now I got what you meant. (I will remove the template RfC for now,) -- Taku (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Reversion of administrative action[edit]

Explain this immediately. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Because the closing was incorrect. See below. What we need, as suggested in the discussion page, is to restore the page and "then" close the discussion. -- Taku (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. The problem is that the page was not moved to my sandbox; I have redirected the page but that page is completely "unrelated". I cannot undo the history merge, which was wrongly done, and we need an admin for that undoing. Please do not close the discussion before you actually learn the situation. -- Taku (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Unblock requested[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

TakuyaMurata (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

There seems to be misunderstanding. I undid the closing since it was based on the misunderstanding that the page in question has been restored. It has not. The content in my sandbox was incompletely "unrelated" but the deleted draft was inserted into the page history of the sandbox. This block in turn is based on the misunderstanding that I'm asking for overrunning the deletion of the restored content (this is wrong as I explained). I have said "we need an admin" since I cannot undo the history merge.

Decline reason:

The block has already expired. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

For the sake of clarity, [1] is unrelated material (it's about Chow's lemma not about Draft:GKM variety.) This is the reason I keep saying the content has not been restored. -- Taku (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Here is the proposal. I will manually undo the history merge meantime we keep closing the discussion. But I want to know I will not get blocked by doing this (manually restoring the draft page.) -- Taku (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For the reviewing admin's benefit, this was the edit that immediately precipitated the block, in addition to the one Coffee linked above. I'm not going to decline unblock myself, because I'm sufficiently annoyed by this user's behavior at DRV that I doubt my neutrality, but I think a 24-hour timeout is, if anything, lenient.
TakuyaMurata, you've really brought this problem on yourself. Without exception, every one of your deletion reviews requested this year - Carathéodory rank, Principal orbit type theorem, Exact couple, Białynicki-Birula decomposition, and now Lie algebra of an algebraic group and GKM variety - have been overreactions, which almost certainly would have been restored by the deleting admin if you had asked politely, and which I guarantee you would have been restored immediately withut comment at WP:REFUND had you asked there. There's no reason for the more adversarial DRV process, and in particular was absolutely no justification for the continued discussion after I extended you an olive branch at the Białynicki-Birula decomposition DRV. This persistence in personalizing what should be entirely drama-free restoration requests is what's made everyone lose patience with you, to the point where we probably would have rebuked User:RHaworth for the history merge you're complaining about now had he done it to any other user's draft. —Cryptic 23:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Now you're trying to provoke me. I don't need to get into "drama"; I'm being dragged into the one. There would have been no drama, had User:RHaworth not merged two unrelated pages or had just undone the merger. There would have been no dram if there is no policy-volating deleletions, moves and messing with the page histories. I am being forced into the drama I have no interest in participating. REFUND is the process for the restoration of normal deletion. I know the process and I'm sidestepping that process on the purpose. I have already proposed the comprise that I will undo the history merge manually. I have actually been contributing to Wikipedia for years. It is the administrative stuff that needs to awake to the fact that they are interfering with the normal editing activity in Wikipedia. -- Taku (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Taku, that wasn't a smart move. Were I an admin, I don't think I'd have blocked in that case for a number of reasons. The right way forward was to contact the admin on his talk page and discuss things. In fact when I saw the close I went to the blocking admin's page as I expected you to do exactly that.
@Cryptic: The whole thing was a clusterfuck. The original deleting admin screwed up more than once here and Taku is right to be upset. Hobit (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

notation conventions[edit]

Please take note of my edits to Generating set of a module. In the expression

r1, ..., rm in R and g1, ..., gm

the subscript m is italicized and the subscript 1 is not, because that matches TeX style, thus:

I changed this:

to this:

This parallels the fact that is used in things like

or

whereas is used in things like this:

Michael Hardy (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Your drafts[edit]

You may have forgotten about some of your drafts:

Do you think some of these may be able to be moved to mainspace where they'll get more attention? Asking because you obviously know more about this topic than I do, and they're your drafts. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing my attention to some of drafts. No, I don't think it's such a good idea to move unfinished drafts to the main namespace. Today, Wikipedia articles tend to be fairly prominent. They are often the first hits on Google search results. Therefore, it is important that the articles in the main space are of reasonable quality. Not only they should be error-free but there should not be the omission of key facts. The absence of a key fact is as bad as the presence of an error. Please note there is no need to rush the completion of drafts. But if you have any pressing need to move some of the above drafts, please let me know. Regards, -- Taku (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Sheaf (infinity category)[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Draft:Sheaf (infinity category), a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sheaf (infinity category) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Sheaf (infinity category) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Basic theorems of algebraic K-theory[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Draft:Basic theorems of algebraic K-theory, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Basic theorems of algebraic K-theory and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Basic theorems of algebraic K-theory during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Lie's formula[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Draft:Lie's formula, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lie's formula and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Lie's formula during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)