User talk:Mathnerd314159

Welcome!

Hello, Mathnerd314159, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! My76Strat (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Marathon bombings

I undid you edits to Boston Marathon bombings as the article you linked to describes a person not an act. Therefore lone wolf is not the type but would be an acceptable description of the perpetrators. XFEM Skier (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we discuss this on Talk:Boston Marathon bombings? I wrote a bit of stuff on there --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that, I agree that is the right place for it. XFEM Skier (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

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.

Happiness

added links pointing to Satisfaction and Triumph

Meaningful life

added a link pointing to Difficulty

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

URL

Hi, sorry about the removal of the URL at Musa basjoo. I suspect, though, that readers with narrow screens won't find the relevant text, as it's not visible at the right unless you scroll. Still, it is correct. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody can edit Wikipedia these days without getting reverted a few times. No hard feelings. ☺

And yes, I wish there was a better URL, but the intersection of horticultural society and computer skills is pretty small. I was really happy that it was online at all... -- Mathnerd314159 (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mathnerd314159. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:List of cooking oils has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:List of cooking oils. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indoctrination

Would you mind clarifying your vote and position at Talk:Socialization#Merger proposal? The nominator was banned for sockpuppetry, which has confused the matter, but I believe the proposal is worthy of discussion. Daask (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Mathnerd314159. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLoop Battlefield new name vote

Dear Mathnerd314159,

Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing WikiLoop DoubleCheck

Dear Wikipedians and contributors, the open source Wikipedia review tool, previously "WikiLoop Battlefield" has completed its name vote and is announcing its new name: WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Read the full story on the program page on Meta-wiki, learn about ways to support this tool, and find out what future developments are coming for this tool.

Thank you to everyone who took part in the vote!

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 18:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Join the RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

Hi Mathnerd314159,
you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page.
Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly!
María Cruz

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.

New, simpler RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

HI Mathnerd314159,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online,
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLoop 2020 Year in Review

Dear editors, developers and friends:

Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.

Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.

Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!

María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Cambridge Diet. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I read WP:Edit warring, it requires "repeatedly changing content back". I only did one revert, hence there's no repetition. I don't see how it could be an edit war. Of course it would be edit warring if I did two reverts. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Least fixed point, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Undecidable. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partially ordered set

Hi! Thanks for improving the caption. Indeed, the row-col order differs from Logical_matrix. I'd prefer nevertheless to keep x for the column and y for the row, since the is the usual order in cartesian coordinates. Maybe, the order in Logical_matrix could be mirrored (it seems to be unsourced, anyway)? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Btw: The full (I hope) description of the image can be found at commons:File:PartialOrders redundencies.pdf#Summary. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the order for the logical matrix follows from the fact that the general order for a matrix element

a_{i}j

is row, column. For example see File:Matrix.svg. I agree, it's annoying... but technically, you have matrices there, not graphs, so Cartesian coordinates don't apply. (Side note: the row-column order on matrix is unsourced too! But I feel like that's an oversight) --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to general matrix order convinces me. I'll change the pictures and the caption. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Happy new year! Mathnerd314159 (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, same to you! [my ad-hoc translation of the German default reply "Danke, gleichfalls!"; I hope it's ok] - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: CircleCI has been accepted

CircleCI, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SiliconRed (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julian calendar

In this edit you left the edit summary "aside: Since proleptic Gregorian is an ISO standard but proleptic Julian is not I would imagine proleptic Julian is used less".

In the historical papers and books I've read about the period in Europe and the Americas before the Gregorian calendar went into effect, the authors used the Julian calendar for all the times and places it was in force. It was in force for over 1600 years in Europe. During that time, a great many historical events occurred that could be dated to a specific date. Before 45 BC, when the Julian calendar began, the number of historical events that can be dated to a specific date is much less. So when referring to events in Europe and the Americas before 1583, I estimate the use of the Julian calendar greatly exceeds the use of the proleptic Gregorian calendar.

I have never read an article or book about history that made any mention of the International Organization for Standardization. I have read all but the latest version of ISO 8601, and participated in a discussion organized by the Library of Congress which heavily influenced the latest ISO 8601. In my view, the authors of all the versions before the latest had little or no interest in historical dates, and only cared about current dates such as airline reservations and financial transactions. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the comparison is not between Julian and proleptic Gregorian; Julian was historically used to record dates and so would of course be more common in history discussing those time periods. Similarly in the history section of the article, the date was found based on the Julian calendar so using proleptic Julian makes sense there. The comparison is rather proleptic Gregorian vs proleptic Julian in the variants section. While there are a few history sources like [1] [2] that use proleptic Julian, all the Maya stuff uses proleptic Gregorian, and all the calendrical calculation / programming sources use proleptic Gregorian. Similarly JD is the only entry using the proleptic Julian calendar - all the variants use Gregorian / proleptic Gregorian. Even if it's not historically the right format, giving the proleptic Gregorian date is much more convenient for people doing calculations using the dates in the table. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead in Refocusing page

Hi Mathnerd314159,

Thanks for the update. Adding a lead is a good idea, thank you. I have revised it to make it more progressive and self-contained.

The depiction of the successive reduction steps now occurs twice: in the lead since this makes the page clearer at the outset, and locally in the text since each depiction illustrates the OCaml code next to it.

Jo-lieang (talk) 08:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-lieang Your revisions have broken the structure of the lead. I suggest you read MOS:OPEN, and the rest of that page. "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is". Mathnerd314159 (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mathnerd314159,

I have just edited the lead to abide with the Wikipedia guidelines, thank you for pointing at them.

Jo-lieang (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't blank (redirect) articles without due process

As you did in Alcohol-related crime. It's fine to copy some relevant content to others articles, so your expansion of alcohol (drug) is very good, but you can't blank an existing article without a WP:MERGE discussion or WP:AFD or like. IMHO Alcohol-related crime is a stand-alone, notable concept and should remain as a separate article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for Unit of alcohol . If you feel that this article should be merged to standard drink, please follow the above procedures, and obtain a consensus through discussion with other editors first. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I might actually support a merge proposal for that second set of topics, as I concur the concepts seems very related (but I don't think you merged 100% of the content from the u of a article? A merge should be complete, or if some stuff was not merged, an explanation is needed - and in either case, we need to follow the procedure and have a merge discussion and wait for consensus to emerge or some time to pass). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MERGEINIT, "If the need for a merge is obvious, editors can be bold and simply do it." Obviously following the usual WP:BRD you are free to revert, so I guess I'll now go through the formal process for Alcohol-related crime, unless you change your mind in the next few minutes. In the Unit of alcohol case, it was proposed several years ago with no objections, so I proposed it formally just because I wasn't really enthusiastic about the merge, but such a process is not necessary, and of course it ended up as nobody objecting during the typical one-week window.

In the Alcohol-related crime case, there was a discussion a few years ago that there are too many alcohol articles so this is my first step in cleaning the various articles up. The crime article is a 7kb stub, and duplicated a fair amount of content from the main alcohol (drug) article. Per WP:NOPAGE, even if an article is notable under GNG or other criteria, it doesn't necessarily merit a stand-alone page, if it can be covered better as part of a larger article. In this case, I think focusing on the social harm the laws are aiming to prevent does provide that broader context, due to the diversity of laws.

Both my merges were information-preserving, in the sense that I removed only duplicated content and references. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've double checked and you are right, the information I thought was missing from standard drink previously in unit... has indeed been merged, my bad. And there was an (old) merge discussion. I've self-reverted my revert of your merge there. But regarding the crime article, I stand by my view that it is needed as a separate article (a type of crime). Ps. If you reply here to me, please WP:ECHO me; otherwise I may not notice your reply and forget about this thread. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Allen Holub (April 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jamiebuba was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Allen Holub and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jamiebuba (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamiebuba But what about the 5-ish reviews? Aren't those enough for WP:AUTHOR? Point 3: "The person has created [...] a significant or well-known work." Mathnerd314159 (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mathnerd314159! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Jamiebuba (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philoserf is back at it

Philoserf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is up to his shenanigans: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philoserf&diff=next&oldid=1151425190 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying licensed material requires attribution

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Strength training you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa I certainly used the source, but I was pretty careful to rephrase the material and write it myself. There are only a WP:LIMITED number of ways to define supersets so the definition remained pretty much the same. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the source journal article is compatibly licensed, it's okay to copy the material unaltered, as long as you provide attribution, like I did here. — Diannaa (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the overlap by visiting the CopyPatrol report and clicking on the iThenticate link. — Diannaa (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

really nice work on the List of skeletal muscles of the human body

You have done a lot of great work on the list of skeletal muscles, it is highly appriciated Claes Lindhardt (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just wanted a list of muscles so I could figure out if my workout was missing any exercises I should be doing... and it ended up being a weeks-long project. The magnitude of the work is probably why it wasn't improved before. :-) Mathnerd314159 (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing display of willpower, now it is much much easier to acces the information one need or validate any subject specefic incuries :) The list of cells in the human body could also really use some of that will power: List of distinct cell types in the adult human body. Even though it is not as directly related to a good workout yet.

With the 791 muscles now listed the number 800 muscles makes a lot more sense :) (even though not all of them occur in all bodies) Job well done Claes Lindhardt (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking a lot about the fact that there seem to be no list of Smooth or cardiac muscles: Muscular system, have that thought also crossed your mind? 87.52.109.22 (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way this blog post explained it (section "Doing the muscle math") - basically, there are 700-ish skeletal muscles, of which maybe 100-300 are of importance in a gym (i.e., a personal trainer only needs to know maybe 50-100 muscle names), there is one-ish cardiac muscle (the heart), and then smooth muscles are (a) involuntary, so you can't exercise them easily (b) so small and common that there are tens of thousands or millions depending on how you try to estimate them. So, basically, skeletal muscles are the ones to list. The heart is unique, and smooth muscles generally don't have names (but there are exceptions, e.g. Muscularis mucosae is the gastrointestinal smooth muscle). I've thought about making the page a "list of named muscles", so that we can list the heart and the more important smooth muscles, but haven't done it yet. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I copied your question over to Talk:List of skeletal muscles of the human body/Archive 1#Other types of muscles since it's relevant so reply there. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Holub moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Allen Holub. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Jamiebuba (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamiebuba As I said when I moved it, it does have enough sources. There are 4 reviews of the book "Compiler Design in C", and per WP:AUTHOR that is enough to establish notability. I have moved it back. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mathnerd314159,

While you are an experienced editor, an article on this subject was recently deleted through an AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Holub) and the standard procedure for recreating articles on subjects that were deleted through AFDs is to go through AFC. So, it wasn't an "crazy" move to move your article to Draft space, it's standard operating practice. The article is much less likely to be tagged for another round of deletion, either CSD G4 or AFD, if it had received approval from an AFC reviewer. Good luck with it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm done working on it. I looked and looked but there are no more reliable sources on him. So either it survives AfD or it doesn't. I don't believe WP:G4 is applicable as I have looked at the old version and it is substantially different. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Mathnerd314159. Thank you for your work on Allen Holub. User:Skynxnex, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good article after earlier deleted. (See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 April 22#Allen Holub for discussion of recreating it with the found sources.)

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Skynxnex}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Skynxnex (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promille

I'm writing this here as I think it is too peripheral to the main discussion, though it might inform a section on the word promille itself. Anyway, does this make any sense to you? (It is one of the papers that Google Scholar suggested.)

ROC analysis revealed that all six biopsies could be distinguished from protocol biopsies by comparing the 999th promille of largest nuclei
— Knoppert, Sebastiaan N., et al. "Cellular senescence in kidney biopsies is associated with tubular dysfunction and predicts CKD progression in childhood cancer patients with KIN." Senescent cell accumulation & Research-based undergraduate education (2021).

It looks like an extension of the percentile concept but it should say permillile (as used here) but it seems to me to be a really messed up import from another language. Thoughts? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a published version where they changed it to "99.9th percentile". The source you give is a thesis, which in my experience generally doesn't get much review - WP:SCHOLARSHIP mentions it is generally considered a primary source. It is certainly an interesting usage but I don't think it is useful for Wikipedia - it is just one data point so probably a "see also" link for percentile is sufficient. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspected. (and no, I wouldn't ever cite it. Examples of use are not citations for the status of a usage.) My substantive point is that many of the sources listed at the Google Scholar link you suggested are either in German or (mis)translated from German. This was an extreme example. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Risk factors for prostate cancer

Hello, Mathnerd314159. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Risk factors for prostate cancer".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 14:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Hello! I'm Jc3s5h. Your recent edit(s) to the page 24-hour clock appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mg% blanked

Hello, I just changed the proposed deletion of Milligram per cent to a soft redirect to Wiktionary since you noted there was an entry there. Just noting that this is a possiblity as alternative to deletion in the future, see Category:Redirects to Wiktionary and Category:Wikipedia interwiki soft redirects in general. Thanks for your contributions to these projects. Recon rabbit 17:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, to be honest, after I posted the PROD and read the template, I had second thoughts, but I wasn't sure what the appropriate resolution was. I just left it as I figured whoever dealt with the PROD would handle it appropriately. Thanks! Mathnerd314159 (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Community activities around maths

Hi Mathnerd, just saw you on the WikiConNA livestream and would like to connect over organizing community activities around maths, e.g. as described here. Daniel Mietchen (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, are you here at the conference or do you want to set up a zoom call or something? Mathnerd314159 (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Mietchen Mathnerd314159 (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there in person, so yes, let's try to connect online. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]