Jump to content

User talk:Kku

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Contexterr (talk | contribs) at 18:16, 1 March 2016 (→Nonexistence). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hi, regarding:

Could you please check the description. I'm german speaking and got confused:

--> Die "lila" Fläche ist eigentlich rot aber "durchscheinend" What is "durchscheinend" supposed to mean in that context? After getting into that topic, I think that area is not only red but also rose (FP), am I correct? And I don't see how TN and FP add up to 1 / the left curve, what about FN?

Viele Grüße --anon. 193.175.73.201 (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome! There is no longer a need to fix all the links to transcription since that page has a disambiguation block instead of full disambiguation. --mav

Hi, I'd like to use the top-left of your File:Receiver_Operating_Characteristic.png as an illustration in a paper (open-access) describing a machine learning technique, but also for a broader audience of users of the (GPL) software who would find an illustration of the confusion matrix handy. I see that it is GFDL... how do I go about including it as a GFDL image? (if it's too much hassle I'll re-draw it, it is after all just normally distributed classifier scores with the confusion matrix labeled). Any chance of making it CC BY (or -NC-SA) (Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike)? jett 08:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fantastic graphic for receiver operating characteristic! -- The Anome 16:06, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

not at all... if you like it: i'd appreciate a little help in formulating a comprehensible caption...*bg*.

Please don't link to filter (as you did in the Kalman filter article) unless you intend to link to a disambiguation page that lists lots of meanings of that word that are very different from the one treated in the article titled filter (signal processing). Michael Hardy 21:02, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

that was actually on purpose. otherwise there would have been no link to the referring supertopic apart from "what links here". and I do think that people might want to know about the broader sense if they come across this page by chance. Kku 08:32, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Scythe picture

Thanks for uploading Image:Scythe.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) Thanks so much, – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 00:52, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! How about Image:Funnelsmall.jpg?

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Unverified images

Hi. You uploaded Image:Borromeanrings.png but did not list any source and/or copyright information on the image description page. Please mark it either as GFDL or public domain. See Image copyright tags for more info. If the image was uploaded in error or cannot be licensed for use on Wikipedia, please add it to images for deletion. Please note that images without copyright information may be deleted in the future. Thanks. RedWolf 02:31, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Also, please tag the description page for Image:Hemoglobin.jpg. See my comment on its discussion page about copyright concerns. Thanks. Kbh3rd 03:19, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Self-organized criticality

Hallo Kku,

Entschuldigen sie bitte, mein Deutsch ist nicht so gut, so ich muß in Englisch schreiben... ;-) I have written a major update to the English wikipedia page on self-organized criticality. Hope this is interesting for you — if it is, any chance of translating some of the material for the German page?

Best wishes & thanks for bringing SOC to Wikipedia! — WebDrake 16:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome. cut'n paste wasn't such a great effort... the update looks interesting, unfortunately i don't have much time to spend on translations lately. i might pick out a few facts for the german page, though. thanks a lot! -- Kku 15:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Funnelsmall.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Funnelsmall.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Re: admin nominations revert

Hi. Excuse me if I am a bit slow, but what do you mean by "unaccepted"? I admit being so bold as to put forward my own name, so I certainly agree to my nomination. And the rest of the procedure should be the voting process by the community, as I understood it, which of course can not take place if the nominations are not put up on the respective page. What is going wrong here? -- Kku 13:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, there were a large block of nominations added by another user which had not been accepted by the nominees, and yours happened to be in the middle. I've unhidden your nomination now. --bainer (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

I'm sorry to let you know that I removed your RfA as incapable of promotion. Early removal is an opportunity for the candidate to assess his or her RfA, read the comments of the community, and so better prepare for a future nomination to adminship. Good luck to you then! -- Cecropia 04:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, well, it was clear even from the first few (some unhelpful) comments. it's sheer numbers that count, obviously. how about substance? never mind. sometimes i do indeed find the german wp a somewhat tidier place to work in. en: certainly could do with a little bit less redundancy. -- Kku 22:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Edit summary

Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy editing. Jesushaces 17:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will, when the summary length does not exceed that of the change. Thanks for pointing out. -- Kku 09:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just one suggestion, it is good to check where the links you make go. For example, the links to kernel and recursive are disambiguation pages, and so, not so helpful. Just a tip. :) Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns. Statistically speaking, I have encountered various pages during the last few days where the wikilink situation was so deplorable (=virtually nonexistent) that even new links to disambiguation pages presented a substantial improvement. In addition I would like to point out that the disambig.-template explicitly says nothing about a "must". This is true in particular for cases when ONLY the disambig.page contains the GENERAL definition that people might be looking for whereas the particular interpretations don't. In general you are right, though, and I take care to be as explicit as possible, usually (I'm not exactly what you'd call a newbie here...) -- Kku 09:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just noticed your adding the links Ventral nerve cord, Insect nervous system and nerve cord etc to articles. I wonder if you are intending to write those articles, or else what's the use of it? I mean, sometimes the titles of non-existing articles are not as foreseeable as it seems (someone else can create just as easily an article named Nervous system (insects) or Nervous system of insects!) Kaarel 17:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

some, few articles. and, lo and behold, i started the first one already. i do not really see a reason to complain about those other as yet non-existent articles here; instead, one could and should feel positively flabbergasted that nobody thought about the possible relevance of arthropod neurobiology up to now - don't you think so? oh, and as for n.s. (insects), etc.: they didn't either. -- Kku 17:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that the articles on insect nervous system (and animal anatomy in general) are still scarce and deficient in Wikipedia - and I warmly welcome them. Kaarel 18:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on Model (abstract)

It would be helpful if you made whatever changes you thought were necessary to improve that article, or at least were more specific about what should be deleted from the article. You might even be willing to rewrite the whole article. It is of very little use to anyone to say the article is redundant. You have the ability as much as anyone else to make it non-redundant. Thanks --CSTAR 19:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point... ;) The only thing that kept me from meddling with it on the spot was my rather incomplete overview of the various points raised on the discussion page. Plus, I think that mathematical / scientific and abstract model do overlap in their basic contents but to various degrees of detail. Joining the essence from three articles isn't something you do with a wave of the hand. I'll certainly grind out something soon. -- Kku 22:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.--CSTAR 13:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Page

You added your old closed RfA request to the main page, are you making another RfA request? -- Tawker 16:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think I added a new one. -- Kku 16:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you intended to start a new RfA request, you should start a new page called Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/kku 2. We don't use old pages. Create it, get it all arranged properly, and only then add it to WP:RFA. Cheers, NoSeptember talk 16:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, it is a new one, you just copied the old one and weren't done editting it before you first added it. NoSeptember talk 16:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, I got it wrong again. What happened is that you added the old one (with the capital "K") to WP:RFA the first time, and then added the new one the second time (which Tawker then renamed). :-P NoSeptember talk 17:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my semi-bad, I didn't realize that WP is case sensitive on subpages, thats what caused the entire confusion, sorry about that -- Tawker 18:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
if you say so... ;-D
but: my name is still not on the rfa-page. what's wrong now? -- Kku 09:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ndash for polynominal titles

Hi. Let me just say that i do not think that two-name pages like Kullback-Leibler divergence necessarily have to be moved-renamed to the -allegedly- nicer-looking ndash version. You mainly produce double redirects that way and barely anyone will notice or appreciate the typographical change in the headline. Could you spend second thoughts on that? -- Kku 12:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: This is standard usage in the Wider World and now in WikiPedia to indicate the difference betweeen multi-person names and hyphenated names of one person. It is not a matter of aesthetics but has a practical function in facilitating better indexing and so on. The double redirects are easily fixed, but one doesn't always catch them all the first time around. This has already been discussed and resolved on the Math Project pages. Jon Awbrey 12:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See more comments at User_talk:Jon_Awbrey#En-Dash_Protocol_Reigning_Over_Polynominal_Titles_.28EDPROPT.29 --NealMcB 21:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical techniques applied to marketing

I approve of your LDA edits! See also: Multidimensional scaling in marketing hike395 13:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you must be a mathophile? ;) thanks! -- Kku 13:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A stats-ophile, rather :-). thanks for the edit! -- hike395 13:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
not at all... :))

hi

hi there, i was wandering on wikipedia and i found your page. i've just failed my first request for adminship and i decided not to bother as much as before, just like you. you must be studying math or something right ? Unixer 15:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no, not really. thank you so much :) but i am one of its fervent supporters with just (little) enough background to meddle with math topics every now and then. i guess, only a certain particular type of nerds will really make it here. sigh. and it's probably not the structure-loving type. -- Kku 15:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

– Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah. i think i've heard rumours. thanks. right. -- Kku 15:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"rank"

Linking to rank is not very helpful, since that is (as you would of course expect) a very long disambiguation page. Michael Hardy 01:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh, I agree. I guess it should have been Rank (set theory). If you'd be so kind as to tell me where exactly I did this? -- Kku 06:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bivariate map

You may want to explain the relevance of four color theorem in the body if you feel it is so; it's not immediately clear why it should be a See also. A four color bivariate map would be pretty useless/misleading; you generally need at least nine or ten. For each variable: 1) ±.5 std dev from median, 2,3)1.5 to .5 from std dev on either side, 4) and the rest (can be shared by both variables), otherwise colors two and three for each variable extend from .5 std dev to the end of the distribution. --Belg4mit 14:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with your TWINKLE revert

This edit of yours, undoing this edit, does not appear to be correct. The edit your undid was one that removed a previous bit of vandalism, not just "removed some random chunk of text." DMacks 15:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

absolutely. but the previous revert was - imho - incomplete. so i just played it safe. -- Kku 07:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Knowledge worker

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Knowledge worker. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. andy 21:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Notability of Cassette (New Zealand band)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Cassette (New Zealand band), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Cassette (New Zealand band) seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Cassette (New Zealand band), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 12:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Kku! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.


--Zeitgespenst (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Utility pattern

A tag has been placed on Utility pattern requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if you, dear wp colleague, are unwilling to realize that there can even be content in fewer words than in this warning message, then so be it. suffice it to say that i doubt your expertise in the field. thanks anyway. -- Kku (talk) 10:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking

I undid your edit to fuzzy control system as it added way too many links not relevant to the context. See [[WP:OVERLINK. alas, a few of the new links were useful, but, as as a whole, this was way over the top. —EncMstr (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so the question remains: why not undo changes a bit more selectively? is it because it would have meant more effort? wouldn't you agree that your criticism (if one could call it that) is way below any constructive level? chances are high that i have had more exposure to wikipedia than you, your considerable professional knowledge notwithstanding. thanks for pointing out anyway. better cooperation next time. -- Kku (talk) 08:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I should have reinstated the useful links you added. The changes you made subsequently are quite good. Thanks. Now I see why I didn't just fix them: Fuzzy was one in a series of articles you edited similarly; I was primarily intending to notify you about the standard. Sorry for being a drive-by critic; I was just about to head out into the mountains for the weekend. Again, I apologize. Thanks for the fine work! —EncMstr (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi, I think I know you in the real world. You should get a better nick if you want to hide your identity. (When did you left the S_N_ group ?) --- A. L. M. 19:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK I never left it, simply because - AFAIK - I never joined it. In fact, I've never even heard of it. AFAIK. And who has claimed I wanted to hide anything? Got any more specific hints for me? -- Kku (talk) 09:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If your date of birth is not August 25th and you do not go to UC-Berkeley then you are not what I think you are. Otherwise, change your user-name. I think I must not give any more hints. --- A. L. M. 14:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you needn't. Even if I was what you think I am, your tone would still be a little less than appropriate, strictly speaking. Go pester someone else, if you please. -- Kku (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My tone? I was only giving a friendly advice as I had changed my nick too. I just wanted to help. Anyway, forgive me if my tune was not good enough. bye. --- A. L. M. 15:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mahalanobis distance

Dear User.

You contributed to the Mahalanobis distance article. Some of its content lacks citations for verification, has been challenged and may be removed. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references.Calimo (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solving reference formatting

I noticed that you're the editor that did most (all?) of the work linking in the references in Problem solving. I've never noticed the type of reference formatting you used (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/articlename#Reference-id) and can't find any discussion of this formatting solution. I started reformatting them in footnote format, but then realized that I was doing it wrong (or at least losing some of the wikicite formatting that you had done.

Before I revert my edits, I wanted to get your opinions on the benefits of the format that you used. I like the footnotes method better because of the two-way linking (from inline link to reference, and from reference to all line citations). --Ronz (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi ronz, yes, you are absolutely right, two-way linking would be one of the benefits. what's more, restricting oneself to footnotes, there is and will never be a good way to automatically semantically distinguish these from a general link list (unless you start tagging entire paragraphs under particular header lines). in fact, as far as i see it, the ideal solution in the current framework would be interspersed <ref>s containing automatically formatted journals or book references using {{Cite journal| ...}} and similar. see, e.g. aspirin. this is about as good as it can get... -- Kku (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I wanted to be sure I wasn't overlooking something before I continued with it. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Quality

I have nominated Quality, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quality. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ←Spidern→ 18:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: style and content

Hello, Kku. You have new messages at Talk:For the Birds (film).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Encyclopedia vs dictionary

I noticed you did some surgery to specific power.

I find that there's a difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia.

In a dictionary, words are king, so the topics are the title, so specific power would include power/area, power/volume and power/mass; and would cover them all.

In an encyclopedia though, the topics are king, so power/area, power/volume and power/mass are doubtless best found in different articles, they have relationships but they're largely distinct topics. It's an unfortunate accident of English that the term 'specific power' is ambiguous in that way, but Wikipedia isn't trying to cover English, it's covering things, topics, where the topics aren't words/phrases.- Wolfkeeper 13:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be debating anything of what you said. But specific power and power density are largely overlapping in meaning and use. So they should be treated in one article, shouldn't they? -- Kku (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Reichenbach

Hi! Now that you've converted Bill Reichenbach into a disambig, could you help clean up the links to the disambig per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Thanks, --JaGatalk 11:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reply for you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Meaning_%28linguistics%29#overlap Hpvpp (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you have been putting links inside of <ref></ref> structures. I must suggest that this is inappropriate. For example, this edit, adding "[[anti-terror system]]s" to a parameter |title=, created a second broken (red) external link. Less seriously, in the same edit, the addition of "[[stalking]] women" to a parameter |quote= changed the quote into a misquote (because the original text did not include the link). (I have reverted these two changes.) Obviously links outside of <ref></ref> structures are a good idea. If you wish to respond, please do so here. HairyWombat 20:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Thinlet

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

no indication of WP:notability. Link to sourceforge is a redirect to a blog. Search of sourceforge does not find it.

While all 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. noq (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Thinlet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Class (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Product lifecycle management, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Maintenance and Kick-off (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Annual premium equivalent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Premium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of RECMA

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 RECMA 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 an organization or company, but it does not 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. AllyD (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Analytics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Controlling, Risk analysis and Pattern search
Business analytics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Clustering, Forecast and Reporting
Cash management (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Armored car

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited SQL Server Integration Services, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pivot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Auditor's report (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to 10-K
Extract, transform, load (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Parallelism
Operational data store (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Reporting

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Liaison (French), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phonetic alphabet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Java: View Technologies and Frameworks, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages JSF, JEE and Struts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Versant Object Database (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to JDO, End-to-end, RCP, Projection, ORB, Add-on, Master-slave, JPA and Memory model
Db4o (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Indexing and Objectivity

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spring Web Flow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MVC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


Tech docs

I noticed that you created the article for Technical documentation. Unfortunately, only a few other editors have taken an active interest. What do you think of trying to beef up the article with some sources, specifically academic ones explaining what exactly makes technical documentation different from other documents? I'd like to actually see a template for this subject one day but the main article will need a lot of attention first. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Executive education may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • professional association, The International University Consortium for Executive Education<ref>[http://www.uniconexed.org UNICON</ref>, also came into existence during this period. UNICON began

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Entropy in thermodynamics and information theory may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • explain quantization have been published<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0112178 Timpson, 2003]</ref><ref>[http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0007116 Hall, 2000]</ref><ref>[http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 24 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Concave hull for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Concave hull 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/Concave hull 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. D.Lazard (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please comment on the AfD for Concave hull?

You can comment or vote here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concave hull. --50.53.36.23 (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I put a copy of the article and the talk page in the sandbox. --50.53.55.68 (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you overwrite the first version with the second version, you can see the detailed differences between the two versions. By combining the two into one version, the diff is not very informative. --50.53.55.68 (talk) 10:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article creation tips

In this edit you added a link to a non-existent article (08:20) and then created the article (10:40). That is backwards. Create the article first and then create links to it. To create a new article, do a search for the article name in the search box and then click on the red link to it. Also, it is a good idea to put a {{stub}} template at the bottom of the new article. --50.53.55.68 (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For a number, you are really clever. Thank you for the enormously useful hint. I always try to learn from numbers, especially when they come with totally new and exciting information. Maybe you care to explain to me one more time how this hyperlink stuff works. -- Kku 07:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Here are two links that you might find helpful: WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL. --50.53.55.68 (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How long have you worked for WP, anonymous? I admit that I find it quite painful to receive advice about conformance and adherence to rules when in the present case, the guy who put requested a deletion within the first evolution stages of the article is not even critized mildly. It's not like I created some inconsistent crap. When people are allowed to wreak havoc with other people work-in-progress instead of helping (moving to another lemma, adding content), this feels like de:WP where bureaucrats have succeeded in killing of most of the earlier verve and enthusiams among the community. Understand? Btw: if you prefer to remain without a name, this will be the end of the discussion on my part. -- Kku 08:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Why did you create the link before you created the article?
Here are two articles on your latter point: Wikipedia:Why create an account?, Wikipedia:Why not create an account?.
--50.53.55.68 (talk) 09:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can remove a PROD from an article, and you certainly would have been justified in doing so, because you were still working on the article.
  • "The first objection kills the PROD, and anyone may object as long as the PROD tag is present."
IIRC, someone did remove the PROD, and that is when the article was nominated for deletion by the AfD process.
You had the option to object to deletion on the AfD page, but you did not do so until I asked you to comment or vote.
--50.53.55.68 (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Geoengineering into Engineering geology

Please comment on your suggestion on the Talk:Engineering geology page. Aszilagyi (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is N-gram and K-mer the same stuff?

Looks like both are substring of a given string of data. I think K-mer can be merged into N-gram since it doesn't have any interlingual links, and so that the articles will be more comprehensive. dennis97519 (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

n-gram is the more comprehensive term and is application-neutral. People talk about k-mers (in analogy to poly-mer) when referring to the particular n-grams that you will get when you apply the ideas from computational linguistics to bioinformatics/molecular biology. In particular, k-mers can also refer to very short concrete DNA sequences that are actually used for genetic engineering. This said, I would fervently vote against a merger. The theoretical basis for chopping up sequences into overlapping motifs can (or should) be found in n-gram article, k-mer should really be left for the biological application. k-mer should refer to n-gram as the more general concept, n-gram should contain a main_article link to the k-mer application of the concept. -- Kku 09:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of T-commerce for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article T-commerce 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/T-commerce 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. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)i've made a huge mess 09:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Why so quick? Does anyone ever look at the creation dates? -- Kku 10:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Ways to improve Execution pattern

Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. Kku, thanks for creating Execution pattern!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. ,

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wuxia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • '''Wuxia''' (武俠}, [[International Phonetic Alphabet|IPA]]: {{IPAc-cmn|u|3|x|ia|2}}),<!-- Please DO NOT include the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:45, 15 October 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) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Non-word

Hello, Kku. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Non-word, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. TheLongTone (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Carlos Gershenson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carlos Gershenson 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/Carlos Gershenson 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. Boleyn (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonexistence

Excellent contextual revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.99.6.184 (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Others have voiced a different opinion. :( The current progress can for now be followed on User:Kku/Nonexistence -- Kku 14:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Certainly neither the truth nor the comprehension is based on the amount of the others. :) -- Contexterr (talk) 13:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "others'" existence alone is enough to make a man despair. -- Kku 17:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The "others"' existence alone is also enough to make a consciousness unpair. -- Contexterr (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-and-paste moves

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give AmpliFIND a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. -- intgr [talk] 14:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. That was a bit rash. I see that a history merge has already been requested. I will not jump into action here . --Kku 14:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kku&oldid=707770144"