User talk:Oli Filth/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Barnstar for you!

Mr. Filth, I am hereby awarding you this Anti-Vandalism Barnstar! Feel free to add it to your user page!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your valiant efforts to protect wikipedia articles, especially those related to The Smashing Pumpkins, from the unholy scourge of vandalism.

-Werideatdusk33 (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on this article

Please keep an eye on Talk:Gothic_chess/Archive_4; I think it may get the same abuse in Talk:Gothic_chess and Talk:Ed_Trice that you have been dealing with (I've already asked for this archive to be protected). Just to clarify (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Adaptive Predictive Expert Control

I have nominated Adaptive Predictive Expert Control for deletion via AfD. I saw that you had put the Prod tag on the page and the article's creator removed it without explanation. You can find the AfD here. Undeath (talk) 06:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, keep an eye on Bobby Fischer

Just a heads up that an editor with a known history of being sympathetic to Gothic Chess is trying to add pro-Gothic Chess propaganda to the Bobby Fischer article. You may want to keep an eye on this article. Just to clarify (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Zigbee

I see. I saw the article on the external links. I'll put something together thats compliant with the external links guideline and post again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ee digital (talk • contribs) 14:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

DVB-h

I have signalled Steppu75 in the vandal report page, only now I see you already warned it. Sorry, didn't want to overcome you. --Cantalamessa (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to apologise for the unexplained reverts on that article. Shoulde have used the sandbox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.149.140.185 (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer and Gothic Chess

We're having a discussion about whether to include the Gothic Chess material in the Bobby Fischer article. I'm letting you know about it because one issue we're talking about is your opinion on the subject. Check the discussion at Talk:Bobby Fischer Just to clarify (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your contribution. Hopefully we will reach a consensus that editors are happy with. Just to clarify (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Just reverted Vandalism on your page - seems that a vandal you gave a warning too, didn't like it. I issued a final warning. Anyway you can make that number 37 on your page! Olly₁₅₀ 12:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It seems I've just had to repay the favour on your userpage... Oli Filth^(talk) 14:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I just noticed that now. I also see that he's now blocked - good. Don't need any of that on Wikipedia - Thanks again!Olly₁₅₀ 15:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Building PHP into a Featured Article

I am currently trying to build PHP into a Featured Article, and I noticed that you have contributed a considerable amount of time to the PHP article. If you have time, could you please help out and improve the article, copyedit it, and peer review it at Wikipedia:Peer review/PHP/archive2? Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to improve the article to featured status, and I believe it is ready for that. But, I already have one nomination right now, so I can't nominate another article. If you think you can donate some time to the article's nomination, then I would be more than willing to help out. Please let me know. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Winged

I've already reported Wingedwhatever for vandalism, just FYI.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, help me

Hi

I'm sorry for bothering, but I really need your help. User:Doc glasgow has reverted the Bonanno crime family page that I've written countless times, due to the fact that he/she means that there are no sources confirming the information I've written on the crime family's bosses and caporegimes, however, I have given up my sources from where I got the information, both from Jerry Capeci's Gangland, as well as the New York Times and the Federal Burea of Investigation news pages on organized crime. Although letting him/her know about this, User:Doc glasgow has not only reverted the Bonanno crime family page, making it seem undone, but also made abusive threats about blocking me from Wikipedia, when really it should be User:Doc glasgow who should be blocked. This person can not be reasoned with, as he/she has been reverting both the Bonanno crime family page, as well as the Colombo crime family page, in addition, the person can not be reasoned with. Please, I need your help!

Gothic Chess castling

A big Ooops from me. But it probably needs to re-worded, because it's ambivalent. Doesn't make clear the King moves three squares only when castling. -The Gnome (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

optics

i notcied u changed my small edit to optics as being branch of physics. Am thinking we should not call it a branch since its merely based on electromagnetism, i mean there are no fundemental laws of optics, there all based in electromagnetism(thats what light is). Lastly, even on the physics page its not listed as a branch of physics or a core theory but merely a sub-branch of electromagnetism. Am thinking we should call it a branch of physical science since thats how its listed on encyclopedia encarta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.181.171 (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The right place for this discussion is at Talk:Optics. I am copying this comment there.--Srleffler (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Proof that XOR swap works

Look, you just reverted the page and deleted a lot of hard work i was trying to contribute to wikipedia. it's not vandalism and it does offer something the other proof does not. you have no good reason to delete this proof. it is much more formally rigorous than the other, that is why it appears less compact. the proof could be done in two lines but it would not illuminate any minds. please leave my proof up or improve upon it. formal rigour is very important in these matters. it is only because a formal proof like this exists that your register machine example works every time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.12.53 (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that I never said it was "vandalism". The register machine example (which I didn't write) relies solely on the properties of the XOR operation, not specifically on the proof that you've added. See my more in-depth response at Talk: XOR swap algorithm. Oli Filth^(talk) 19:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

re: Bobby Fischer

I note that you reverted a change at Bobby Fischer but did not explain why. An IP both removed and added information. At first glance what he removed should have been kept but also what he added was sourced and reasonable. Do you object to merging both the old and new information? Sbowers3 (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This IP and many others have been repeatedly adding this material for a while now (see the page history); it's been removed every time, see the discussion+consensus about it on the talk page. It's happened so many times now that I've got bored of typing an edit summary! Oli Filth^(talk) 20:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

re: New section

<<I've removed the newly-added "Formula" section, because it's overly-complicated, and more importantly, redundant.

The article already states that a set of vectors is linearly independent iff the determinant of the matrix they form (let's call it X) is non-zero. However, the matrix formed in the new section (the matrix of dot products) is in fact equivalent to calculating X^TX. Of course, |X^TX| ≠ 0 iff |X| ≠ 0. Therefore, this section says nothing new, I'm afraid. Oli Filth^(talk) 23:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)>>

OK, I basically agree, but it is not that trivial: suppose you have a set of 4 vectors which 'live' in $\mathbb {R} ^{7}$ and you want to find out if they are linearly independent or not. Then matrix X will have 4 columns and 7 rows: it is not square, so $\det X$ is undefined. In such case it is not a redundancy to compute $\det X^{T}X$. And then, in such case (for non-square X), how does one show (succintly) that $\det X^{T}X$ tests for linear independence? Here is an argument: the
4-D subspace $\{\mathbf {x} _{1},...,\mathbf {x} _{4}\}$ contains some orthonormal basis $\{\mathbf {e} _{1},...,\mathbf {e} _{k}\}$ where $k\leq 4$. Arrange these vectors in columns to form matrix E, which will be 7 × k. Then $E^{T}$ is k × 7 and a left-inverse of E, so $E^{T}E=I$ and $EE^{T}$ is a 7 × 7 symmetric projection operator which projects vectors in $\mathbb {R} ^{7}$ onto the k-dimensional subspace. As such, let $\Pi =EE^{T}$. Then $\Pi X=X$ and so $X^{T}\Pi X=X^{T}(\Pi X)=X^{T}X=(X^{T}E)(E^{T}X)=(E^{T}X)^{T}(E^{T}X)=X_{(E)}^{T}X_{(E)}$ where $X_{(E)}^{T}X_{(E)}$ is a 4 × 4 square matrix and $X_{(E)}:=E^{T}X$ is the matrix X expressed in terms of the basis $\{\mathbf {e} _{1},...,\mathbf {e} _{k}\}$. Now it is indeed true^{${\color {Blue}{}^{1}}$} that $\det X_{(E)}={\sqrt {\det X_{(E)}^{T}X_{(E)}}}$ where the left side is the usual test for linear independence (as well as giving the 4-volume of the 'parallelotope' whose sides are parallel to $\{\mathbf {x} _{1(E)},...,\mathbf {x} _{4(E)}\}$).
[${\color {Blue}1}$ - because $\det X_{(E)}^{T}=\det X_{(E)}$, so $\det(X_{(E)}^{T}X_{(E)})=(\det X_{(E)}^{T})(\det X_{(E)})=(\det X_{(E)})^{2}$.]

Note that since $X^{T}X=X_{(E)}^{T}X_{(E)}$, that is, $X^{T}X$ is invariant under change of (the subspace's) basis, then $X^{T}X$ would be a tensor, not unlike the metric tensor.

Anyway, today I found out that $X^{T}X$ is called Gram matrix, so I added a See also link to it, and that should be enough. There is a nice PDF file on the web about this topic: http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~fjones/chap8.pdf, followed up with http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~fjones/chap11.pdf, though this goes well beyond mere linear independence (perhaps I'll add the first one under External links for the Gram matrix article). Anyway, thank you for describing my edit as 'good faith'. —AugPi (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC

Operational Amplifier

Hello. Please reconsider your view on the value of links to an external reference information for SupplyFrame. The external links added to the SupplyFrame reference site are valid, contextual and valuable.

They are added per the Wikipedia policy on External Links, What should be linked to #3

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons."

SupplyFrame is an electronic engineering reference site populated directly with industry neutral technical content and datasheets authorized by 2,300 partnered global manufacturers and their franchised distributor.

While there are numerous external links on Wikipedia to 1 or 2 manufacturers - SupplyFrame provides the content on all manufacturers through one source. This is not spam, it's a tool used by electronics designers worldwide to research electronic components such as the Operational Amplifier. SupplyFrame is a publicly accessible site that requires no registration. SupplyFrame is a member of the National Electronics Distributor Association.

Television licensing in the United Kingdom

Evidently what they taught you at York is not what the rest of the world taught me. 86.138.62.16 (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7