User talk:Wirkstoff

Citing sources

I've just done some edits on Euler–Worpitzky–Chen polynomials, bringing the article closer to the norms of Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics). Your user page says you recognize the importance of citing sources. You attribute the concept to Peter Luschny. But I don't see any publications by Peter Luschny cited in the article. Could you add that? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael,

thanks for your help! Sure, citing sources is of utmost importance and I try hard to give duly credit. However, in this case it is not possible to refer to a publication. As far as I know Peter never published his results. I know these polynomials from personal communication only. But what I did was to check all of Peter's claims. And I did set up this page because I believe that his ideas are significant. I removed Peter's name from the page -- he did know that I cited him -- but he does not care. Thanks again. Wirkstoff (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wirkstoff. I'm afraid that does present a bit of a problem. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that all articles must be supported by publications. This is explained in Wikipedia:Verifiability, which starts:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

As such, we really cannot accept articles that are supported by personal communication only, how significant they may be. Please make sure that from now on, you only add material supported by the literature, because otherwise we will have to delete it. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jitse, ok, I understand. I don't know how to delete an article, go ahead and do it, I do not mind. And I will never again publish truth ;-). However, which things I wrote are not immediately verifiable? It's all elementary math, not rocket sience. Even if in ten years I will be able to add a list of ten papers to this article (and sure I will be able, because it is significant stuff) this will not make big difference with regard to 'verifiability', I think. You understand math or not. But it is not my intention to argue. I thank you for the advice. Cheers, Wirkstoff (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TeX and Wiki and Html

Hello Michael, is there an conversion utility 'TeX->Wiki'? I really would appreciate such a tool. I am really sorry to see you pick so many typographic bugs in my contributions. Oh.. I have to put this question on your page. Next time I know how to find it. Bye Wirkstoff (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bernoulli numbers

You wrote:

Here the Bernoulli numbers are an inclusion-exclusion over the set of length-n words,

What is the pattern in the signs in these formulas? If they just alternated or something simple like that, I'd probably understand it, but from the first several identities, just of 0 through 3, I can't see what the pattern is. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- Chessbord pattern (-1)^(n - k) on a (n x k)-grid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wirkstoff (talk • contribs) One more time: Wirkstoff (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Euler–Worpitzky–Chen polynomials

An article that you have been involved in editing, Euler–Worpitzky–Chen polynomials, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euler–Worpitzky–Chen polynomials. Thank you. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you silly rabbit! There is nothing to discuss. And as I said above (June 2008): "Hi Jitse, ok, I understand. I don't know how to delete an article, go ahead and do it." At the time I edited the articel I did not understood Wikipedia well. I approached Wikipedia naively and in good intent, but not well informed. I am sorry for that. Cheers, Wirkstoff (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]