User talk:MathsPoetry: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 04:17, 6 May 2022

 I'm not active here anymore, you can contact me on fr:Utilisateur:MathsPoetry

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
- Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
- If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW

d:Q11643847. If you need any Wikidata help, feel free to ask, as I'm an admin over there. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.

Done Already done by DangSunM on WikiData. But I'll keep your name as a contact, the search on Wikidata is sometimes broken, I don't know why... --MathsPoetry (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Templates on fr:WIkipedia

While translating [1] into English, I have found that fr.wikipedia.org uses templates "démonstration" and "Théorème". If en:Wikipedia has equivalent templates (which seem to me an excellent device) I have failed to find them. What would you advise? Maproom (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No clue, I am not active on this wikipedia. But there should be something equivalent... --MathsPoetry (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+  I'm not active here anymore, you can contact me on [[:fr:Utilisateur:MathsPoetry]]
-== Re: expanders ==
+== Your HighBeam account is ready! ==
-Hi MathsPoetry,
+Good news!  You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.  Here's what you need to know:
-First, I want to apologize for any rudeness on my part -- it's hard to modulate oneself in text communication.  You requested input about the question of whether three lines in the article constitute original research; it seems to me that instead they constitute a necessary attempt to take notations from several sources and make them agree, together with a small amount of algebraic manipulation, and this is the point of my comments in the discussion you started.  On the other hand, you have made some unrelated comments here and there about the general inaccessibility of this article, and pointed to the corresponding French article.  I agree that the French article has some clearly desirable features, most notably some pretty pictures and concrete examples.  I think that it would probably be very easy to improve the English article by translating and copying some of this material.  In any case, I would hate to be responsible for chasing you away from editing math articles in English wikipedia, as you obviously are a skilled editor (even though we disagree about the original, fairly minor point).
+* Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
+**Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in [[Special:Preferences]]).
+**If you did not receive a code but were on the [[WP:HighBeam/Approved|approved list]], add your name to [[Wikipedia:HighBeam/Approved#Approved_but_code_not_received|this section]] and we'll try again.
+* The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
+* To activate your account: 1) Go to [http://www.highbeam.com/prof1 http://www.highbeam.com/prof1]; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
+* If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line.  Or go to [[WP:HighBeam/Support]], or ask [[User:Ocaasi]].  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
+* A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
+* HighBeam would love to hear feedback at [[WP:HighBeam/Experiences]]
+* Show off your HighBeam access by placing <nowiki>{{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}}</nowiki> on your userpage
+* When the 1-year period is up, check [[WP:HighBeam/Applications|applications page]] to see if renewal is possible.  We hope it will be.
+Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better.  Enjoy your research!  Cheers, [[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]]<sup> [[User talk:Ocaasi|t ]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Ocaasi| c]]</sup> 20:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
+<!-- EdwardsBot 0256 -->
+== BTW ==
-All the best,
-[[User:Joel B. Lewis|Joel B. Lewis]] ([[User talk:Joel B. Lewis|talk]]) 22:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
+[[d:Q11643847]]. If you need any Wikidata help, feel free to ask, as I'm an admin over there.''' —&nbsp;<u>[[User:PinkAmpersand|<span style="color:#000;">PinkAmpers</span>]][[User:PinkAmpersand/Pink|<span style="color:#FF1493;">&#38;</span>]]</u>'''[[User talk:PinkAmpersand|<sup style="color:#000;">(<u>''Je vous invite à me parler''</u>)</sup>]] 20:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
-Hi Joël,
+: Thank you very much. {{done}} Already done by {{u|DangSunM}} on WikiData. But I'll keep your name as a contact, the search on Wikidata is sometimes broken, I don't know why... --[[User:MathsPoetry|MathsPoetry]] ([[User talk:MathsPoetry#top|talk]]) 20:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
+== Templates on fr:WIkipedia ==
-You've really not been that rude. Furthermore, if I look back at the various contributions, the harsh person has been me, not the others. Anyway, apologies accepted.
+While translating [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension_(th%C3%A9orie_des_graphes)] into English, I have found that fr.wikipedia.org uses templates "démonstration" and "Théorème". If en:Wikipedia has equivalent templates (which seem to me an excellent device) I have failed to find them. What would you advise? [[User:Maproom|Maproom]] ([[User talk:Maproom|talk]]) 19:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
-With respect to the many edits, I guess it's because I am both disconfident of my mathematical assertions (I tend to verify everything ten times when I prove something), and of my level in English. That probably explains why your remark has hurt a bit.
+: No clue, I am not active on this wikipedia. But there should be something equivalent... --[[User:MathsPoetry|MathsPoetry]] ([[User talk:MathsPoetry#top|talk]]) 21:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
+== The Wikipedia Library Survey ==
-If I am leaving the English wikipedia (or intended to leave it -- your apologies are putting me into deep confusion, I was not expecting them), not because of rudeness, but because of two things:
-* first, I was really wanting to help with this article, I was ready to rewrite it from scratch based on the experience with the French one, and got the impression that this (implicit) proposal was met only with disdain
-* second, I saw in very few hours all my world of wikipedian certitudes croll down :
-** that we were writing for the general public, not for experts
-** that we had to refrain from doing our own research
-** that we had to source everything (and that it also meant that the source verification had to be straightforward)
+As a subscriber to one of [[WP:TWL|The Wikipedia Library]]'s programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this [https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_23JuoVF5e7dgDl3 '''brief survey.'''] Thanks and cheers, [[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]]<sup> [[User talk:Ocaasi|t ]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Ocaasi| c]]</sup> 15:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
-You must realize I'm almost a newbie here, but I have 15 k edits (no, not hesitation edits, mostly real ones...) and I think people appreciate me usually. You can see my contributions in English, which are not many, on:
+<!-- EdwardsBot 0678 -->
-* [[Bayesian spam filtering]] (I did all the maths)
-* [[Quaternions and spatial rotation]] (The proof named "quaternions in practice"), and
-* [[Gimbal lock]] (especially the math explanations).
-But all of these were my first wikipedian contributions, so I am quite ashamed now I see them.
+== [[WP:ACE2015|ArbCom elections are now open!]] ==
-I could not agree more with you that the initial starting point about this questioned paragraph is not really important.
+Hi,<br>
-Leave me a day of two. I think I need to calm down right now and get away from this expander graph thingie.
+You appear to be eligible to vote in the current [[WP:ACE2015|Arbitration Committee election]]. The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia [[WP:RFAR|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 [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[WP:ARBPOL|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to [[WP:ACE2015/C|review the candidates' statements]] and submit your choices on [[Special:SecurePoll/vote/398|the voting page]]. For the Election committee, [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
+<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692215842 -->
+== [[WP:ACE2015|ArbCom elections are now open!]] ==
-Best, --[[User:MathsPoetry|MathsPoetry]] ([[User talk:MathsPoetry#top|talk]]) 23:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
+Hi,<br>
-== a remark ==
+You appear to be eligible to vote in the current [[WP:ACE2015|Arbitration Committee election]]. The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia [[WP:RFAR|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 [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[WP:ARBPOL|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to [[WP:ACE2015/C|review the candidates' statements]] and submit your choices on [[Special:SecurePoll/vote/398|the voting page]]. For the Election committee, [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
+<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692215842 -->
-Hi MathsPoetry,
-it is a pity that the discussion about expanders became so personal. It is obvious to me that your contributions have improved the article a lot. Also, the disputed paragraph is questionable in many senses.
-The reason I firmly disagreed with you (and I would guess this is the same reason why some other editors disagreed with you) is that I replied to a specific assertion you made, "A contributor has put a theorem of his own in an article". To me this sounded like an unfair accusation towards an editor who obviously acted in good faith: he took a formula from the BHT article and translated it to the notation in which our article is written (on the way, he made an error, also in good faith: on page 1 of BHT there is a remark that they denote ''twice'' the eigenvalue by ''&lambda;''<sub>2</sub>; this remark is easy to miss).
-As I have a rich experience of communication failure in languages which are not my mother tongue, please do not take personally any of the comments in the discussion (including mine). On English wiki (unlike the French one) ''most'' of us are non-native speakers, therefore communication failures happen often.
-Best regards,
-[[User:Sodin|Sasha]] ([[User talk:Sodin|talk]]) 01:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
-Hi Sasha,
-I think we are all of good faith here: me, my contradictor, and all the people who emitted their opinion. That's not the question.
-I think there is a deep problem that this issue has raised. It is being stated that verifiability of sources is for ''experts'' only. That restrains ''de facto'' the verifiability to the contributors of an article, and excludes the ordinary readers. I find the idea extremly unpleasant: for example, If I browse an article on a subject I know little about, and want to have a look in the sources, I would like to find the alleged information, and not have 1) to read the whole article 2) lear the theory, 3) reconstruct a reasoning, and 4) check it is valid. In this pecular case, even with some understanding of the topic, and a good level in maths in general, I was unable to reconstruct the reasoning without the help of the writer of the paragraph: what if he had been on vacation, had left wikipedia, or had been hit by a bus? The wrong version of the formulas would have stayed in the article forever.
-Yes, it is easy to miss a word like "twice". I would probably have made that mistake too. This is precisely because it is so easy to make mistakes, even for confirmed mathematicians, and for humans in general, that we should restrain from doing our own research. We should prevent ourselves from getting away from what is written on the paper at the original source. That's the best way of making sure such mistakes won't happen.
-Since the result has not been published before, yes, it remains a theorem of the person who wrote it. Maybe the words "theorem of his own" were a bit harsh, but that's ultimately what it is. Bobkov et al. had no interest in bounding the eigenvalues, their focus was on the Poincaré-type constant. I am even wondering if this bounding of the eigenvalue is interesting at all, as it might be too loose an upper value. I tried with concrete examples and got the impression that the comparaison was not bringing a lot of information. Ylloh himself emitted the suggestion that a better result could be reached by taking an other approach (which would make this whole discussion moot, BTW).
-I'm not really taking things personnally (well, I do, but I'd like to think there's more to it), I am having a problem with the ''rules'' of the English wikipedia. This exception to the interdiction of original work and to constraint of verifiability that is given to maths is unhealthy. Mathematics have their own "truth", which is called "demonstrability", and there are cases where it can collide with the general Wikipedian principles. This is one of these cases here. When you don't agree with the rules of a community, you leave it. I think it's what I have to do. --[[User:MathsPoetry|MathsPoetry]] ([[User talk:MathsPoetry#top|talk]]) 07:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)