User talk:Wcherowi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Warning Templates[edit]

Information icon Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Fibonacci number: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you.

Re: Kepler Fraud[edit]

Thanks for revising my edit instead of deleting it. :)'s_laws_of_planetary_motion

Line Segment and Euclidean distance[edit]

Hi, I was informed you reverted my edit on Line Segment. I probably did not get my message across, which might of ended up in the Talk page, but I was trying to be constructive. The problem is, kids at school get set problems dealing with the size of segments, circumferences and areas, but nowhere in this article does it hint to how a segment is measured, or why a segment should be linked to a distance. I have tried to make amends by editing the paragraph in Euclidean distance. Any revision would be welcome. Apparently it is considered too elementary to mention, or too circular to define, but I do feel there is a gap in the current set of articles. Ziounclesi (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

My revert was based on my perception that the statement was too vague to be called a property. I was hoping that a more detailed attempt would be forthcoming. I do however see your point, there is a gap that needs to be addressed. I took the liberty of expanding your edit to Euclidean distance and moving the paragraphs around since this needed to be stated first. If you like what I have done we can think about how the statement in line segment should be phrased. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your further revision, and for taking time to understand my viewpoint. In my haste I forgot the direction, thanks again for fixing that. Getting back to line segment, in the Proofs paragraph, it quotes the Segment addition postulate and jumps into the concept of distance, which, in my ignorance of higher mathematics, does not seem to be mentioned in the Properties paragraph. Now, please allow me a wee provocation: length is the only feature a segment has  :-) Now, WP is not for dummies, but many elemetary geometry problems for juniors revolve completely around the relative size of segments and angles. How to explain or fix this omission? "Historically, the basic property of a segment is its length. In Euclidean geometry, two dimensional shapes are built using segments, and defined by the number of segments, relative size and joining angle. Theorems and proofs describe the relationships between shapes, segments and angles. The idea of segment is intimately tied to a metric. This viewpoint was overturned at the beginning of the 20th century, by the rise of mathematical logic, that aimed to unbundle numbers, theorems and proofs from any physical representation, like size and distance." Ziounclesi (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

on Prototypehumanoid's edits[edit]

I put notes on NeilN's and Meters' talk pages to inform them about the recent Calculus edits, since both already warned him. Regards, Purgy (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Graph Theory[edit]

Hi, I've added links to open source, academic (all MIT or BSD licensed) software stacks that help one to simulate graph theory in practice. Current article is all talk, no action. They are removed with the reason "link farm". I'm confused. Github, the platform that hosts these software free and show no ads, is no more for-profit than Wikipedia. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esokullu (talkcontribs) 20:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It is the practice here (as opposed to other places on the web) to put new remarks at the bottom of a talk page, so I have taken the liberty of moving yours here. As to your issue–there is nothing wrong with the links that you have tried to add to this Wikipedia page. The reason that they have been removed (twice now) has to do with the nature of Wikipedia. There are several things that Wikipedia is not (see Wikipedia:Not) and one of these is that WP is not a collection of links (a linkfarm) to other sites on the web. When links are made, they have to provide information about the subject of the article that is not adequately presented in the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a nexus for activities surrounding an article's topic. There are plenty of places on the web that one can go to for such activities, but to try to maintain some semblance of integrity and purpose, WP is not one of them. This is a shared belief in the Wikipedia community and many editors will remove such links when they see them. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Wrote a response to your recent undo of my changes to "vacuous truth" article. I think your undo was a bad decision.[edit]

I added a section to the vacuous truth article's talk page (link), entitled "Article quality has become poor. Has inconsistencies and also needs explanation of why vacuous truth exists.".

It seems to me that if this is how the editing culture is on Wikipedia then I should probably spend my time elsewhere, somewhere with a more reasonable culture. My time is valuable, and I shouldn't have to argue over even the most basic and obviously useful changes.

--MagneticInk (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


Dear Wcherowi

I learned several materials related and know follow things.

1 Avoid linking to Arxiv. That's not allowed by them.

2 There is risk about conflict of interest with journal to which my paper will submit.

3 Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. I post it on talk page and want to ask other people to give me their opinions about it then I can improve my work. It’s difficult for me to discuss my work with people. I’m an engineer and don’t work in a university. However contents in my post are enough simple to be understand. I want to know if my statement is clear enough and how difficult for it to be accepted by people. I participated ICM 2010 in Hederabad. Woodschain175 (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)