User talk:Wcherowi
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Warning Templates
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
Thanks for revising my edit instead of deleting it. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion
The problem is that Permutations with repetition are not permutations. That also is stated in the article, It is a probability scalar number as it is used Orendona (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
https://www.ck12.org/probability/permutations-with-repetition/lesson/Permutations-with-Repetition-BSC-PST/#:~:text=There%20is%20a%20subset%20of,of%20objects%20that%20are%20identical. https://brilliant.org/wiki/permutations-with-repetition/ https://www.mathsisfun.com/combinatorics/combinations-permutations.html https://www.google.com/search?q=Permutations+with+repetition&oq=Permutations+with+repetition&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l4j69i60l3.9800j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Orendona (talk • contribs) 03:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Catenary contribution deletion
Hello, why did you delete my contribution? My solution is valid and verified by faculty peers. If you have any mathematical or logical criticism, please elaborate. If not, please do not strike down with no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.zalman (talk • contribs) 21:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Your solution was unsourced as I mentioned in my edit summary. Wikipedia does not publish original work (see WP:NOR), so no matter how correct the solution was, it can not be used until it is published in a reliable source.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Percentage point
Dear Wcherowi, The changes I made you reverted as "good faith edit". However, I'm afraid that the current definition of the percentage point may be interpreted in the way that 44% - 40% = 4% is wrong. Of course, it is 4 percentage points as well. I am not against "percentage points". However, from the mathematical point of view, the arithmetic difference of two percentages is the value in percentages again. So, I wanted to ask why did you revert my contribution? I'm looking forward to your reply, so I can improve my contribution. ToMiBi (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- The whole idea of introducing the term "percentage point" is to avoid the confusion that you are trying to introduce. Percentage points are not percentages. Your insistence on saying that m% - n% = (m-n)% is just a meaningless manipulation of symbols. While it is true that you can express a percentage point as a percent, it is not given by this simple-minded formula. A change from 1% to 5% is a change of 4 percentage points, but an increase of 400% (and not 4% as you would like to say), and the example in the article, from 40% to 44% is likewise a 4 pp increase, but a 10% increase. You can not equate percentage points with percentages because the percentages depend on the magnitude of the quantities and the percentage points do not.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)