User talk:X7q

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, X7q, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edits to artificial networks

You must not start editing these articles and changing all the terms in there, such as feedforward to feed forward. THese are terms that are normally joined.

Chaosdruid (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Must" is a strong verb. Please, let's have a polite conversation and not use any words like that, ok?

As for "feedforward" vs "feed forward" - 1) exactly in what diff did I change that? 2) a quick search on Google Books tells me that both "feed forward" and "feed-forward" are used almost equally frequently, so what's your reason for prefering "feedforward"? -- X7q (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edits to n-grams

Why did you mark as "spam" and also delete the link to www.wordfrequency.info for the [n-grams] article? Can you point me to another n-grams set that is as complete as that from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), other than the Google and Microsoft n-grams sets? And unlike the Google and Microsoft data, the n-grams from COCA are the only ones based on a large, well-balanced corpus (e.g. spoken, fiction, popular magazines, newspapers, and academic). The COCA n-grams are being used at a number of universities worldwide, and COCA itself is arguably the most widely-used corpus now available (about 60,000 unique users each month -- far more than the BNC, BoE, OEC, etc). Again, can you provide some rationale for marking this "spam"? If not, I will again include an external link to this. Lingprofe (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ELNO: "one should generally avoid [...] links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services", which is the case with your site. I guess, this link is okay in Corpus of Contemporary American English, since their official site promotes yours, but in a general article like n-gram, it's inappropriate. -- X7q (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be better if you add an internal link to Corpus of Contemporary American English instead of your external link. -- X7q (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edits to defragmentation

I got your message and I've read the guidelines, of course I agree, but I strongly believe that my site should stay at the "defragmentation" page at least.

And no, it's not selling anything. As for the other pages where I've added it, I reviewed them and you were right, some of them just aren't related. So feel free to remove the URL from any other page except the "defragmentation" one. And no, I'm not looking for any SEO benefits, I know what "no-follow" tags mean, don't worry about that...

best regards, Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksandar030 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:EL#ADV, you shouldn't add links to your own web sites. This is conflict of interests. Even though you don't sell anything at your site, you have lots of ads there. -- X7q (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please ask you to think twice about that one? The site teaches people basic defragmentation principles (on a language they understand, as easy as possible) and gives them information they seek for. The bounce rate is very low which means they read everything they find over there. If you don't want my site (I'm not going to lie like others might - it's my site) included over there, that's ok, I could care less, but believe me when I tell you, it does provide your users value, and as for ads, they barely pay hosting fees so I don't have to pay that at least... Heck, even ads provide them value if they locate something of interest...

I'm not a stubborn man, I'll leave it alone, but you think about this for a second...

best, Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksandar030 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think that your site is one of those "made for adsense" kind. You even have "privacy policy" just because adsense requires it, right? "they barely pay hosting fees" - that's a bad argument. Many sites can host your content for free, e.g. wikibooks. Of course, they typically wouldn't let you make profit from adsense, like you do with your own site.

If you want a second opinion about your site, ask for it on Talk:Defragmentation. If other people would agree (which I highly doubt) that a link to your site is worth to be included, then it could be added. Until that happens, please don't add it. -- X7q (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I need to add it just to get a response from you? Nevermind...

Anyway, I want to know why do you think it's "made for adsense"?

Tell me, where do you think a line exists between "made for adsense" and sites like this. What would've made you think it's not "made for adsense"? I really want to know what I'm doing wrong and what should I do to make it "not made for adsense"?

I never wanted it to become "made for adsense", obviously I did something wrong, so bear with me on this one and don't make me add it one more time to get a response from you.

Let me know what you think and we can all move on, and don't worry I won't include it anymore, I just had a feeling you'll post a response and if it's an accident (I actually added it today, and voila there's a response from you) I'm really sorry, I see you already altered everything so no big damage is done...

best, Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksandar030 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonlinear optimization template

Hi X7q! I changed the name of the template sections to be more explanatory to general readers. "Methods using gradients" is more understandable than "first order methods", don't you agree? Why do you prefer your suggestions? Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but first column shouldn't be too wide. Put some <br />'s. -- X7q (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shortened the names (and increased the content), thanks to your suggestions. Please modify as you see fit, of course. Good night! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undid revision 398777790 on page Google bomb

Hello, I'm a bit confused with your comment unsourced, OR ("which show that ...")). Do I have to include screen capture of Google's search result to show it really happened?

Hensem (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"which show that comparing him to a monkey is a widespread phenomena in the blogosphere." - this is an original research. Such a statement about a living person is absolutely unacceptable in Wikipedia without a citation, see WP:V. -- X7q (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Yandex

You appear to have removed my edits to Yandex page; can I assume that you have a commercial interest in Yandex itself? Remember http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars !

I run several websites and have seen as many as 190 separate browser sessions created by Yandex webbot from a single IP address. This behaviour, in my opinion, makes it an unfriendly bot.

WhiskyGolf (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of those five pillars is "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view". I believe your edit violates it by adding a negative information about Yandex without providing a source of that information. But if you can find and cite a reliable source (e.g. blogs aren't OK), I wouldn't object against your edit. -- X7q (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for your personal experience with Yandex robots, I suggest that you email Yandex support [1]. You can't write about it in wikipedia without a reliable published source. -- X7q (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be bothered; I didn't ask them on to my site so robots.txt, here I come. Hopefully the webbot will be decent enough to honour robots.txt WhiskyGolf (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they respect robots.txt. Still, consider writing a couple of lines to support@search.yandex.com and attaching records from your access log. May be it'll help them find a bug and other sites wouldn't have to suffer in the future. -- X7q (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the Wiki article below: it has real code!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen%E2%80%93Sutherland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapil.xerox (talk • contribs) 01:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A much more appropriate place for source code samples would be wikibooks or literateprograms wiki. Take a look at Algorithm Implementation wikibook. -- X7q (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about revision in Google platform

Hi X7q: I'm a little puzzled by this reversion to my edit on Google platform, since I'm not sure how "a widely used within the company binary serialization format" forms a complete sentence. I read the entire sentence, and it still doesn't make any sense. Since "widely used" needs to be followed by a noun, which is missing, I'm concerned as to the logic of the sense after the current edit. Maybe "term" wasn't the right word to insert there, but can you explain the logic behind your revision a bit more to me? Maybe "a widely used abstraction" would be appropriate, because that's what the section is referring to in general? Thank you! άλφα7248^Talk 18:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A widely used (within the company) binary serialization format. "format" is the noun. -- X7q (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "within the company, a widely used binary serialization format" would make it more clear? or maybe it's just unclear to me, that's always a possibility too. άλφα7248^Talk 07:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This word order sounds rather unnatural to me. I've changed the sentence to "a binary serialization format which is widely used within the company". It looks much better and very clear to me. -- X7q (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me; sorry about the confusion! Thanks! άλφα7248^Talk 07:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello About XRumer page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XRumer here link to official site is Incorrect and why somebody always changes correct link to incorrect one oficial site is www.botmasterlabs.net.

You can go to russian article about XRumer http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/XRumer

And to see correct link to RUSSIAN site, then go to that site and to see in top Right corner Link to English site and it will be www.botmasterlabs.net

Regards, ALXuMuK (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Please discuss this at Talk:XRumer. -- X7q (talk) 08:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Отписался и там... Только до сих пор не понятно как можно не видеть очевидного... -- ALXuMuK (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

реально такое впечатление что пользователь Berfasmur продвигает свой сайт таким вот странным способом... ALXuMuK (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sieve of Eratosthenes

Hi, and thanks for correcting my error. I've come to the page to correct it when I realized it was wrong, and it was corrected already. I've got confused measuring it in Haskell, where the complexity is worse in the first place, for the code I was measuring. There it indeed had an enormous impact on both speed and complexity. Thanks! WillNess (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't insert

I reverted the guy's insert & didnt insert anything. Probably the link was already in the previous version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.211.120.196 (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modular inverse edits

Hi,

I clarified the edit further. I'm going to post some reasoning for the edit I made in the talk page. 83.183.40.68 (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bayesian

Hey, I'm not a power-user of Wikipedia and generally do minor edits, but I saw your suggestion from 5 months ago to delete a section of the Bayesian article, and I think instead it should be reverted instead to just get rid of the changes made to that section... i don't know if we "undo" his edits if it also "undoes" the edits done after him, which are on other sections and are good... Deproduction (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undo Abuse

Hi --

Hey, please don't undo without comment. You may want to re-read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting -- when people make a good faith effort to add something, reverting without comment and then accusing of spam (for what appears to be a non commercial wiki) is not appropriate. --Quasipalm (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did provide a comment the second time. -- X7q (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've been adding links to that wiki to multiple articles, even after they've been removed by other editor. In my opinion this is clearly a spammy behaviour, at least a conflict of interest. -- X7q (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the policy isn't to provide a comment the second time, it's to provide a comment the first, so keep that in mind, especially if you're going to start evoking rules yourself. Yes I'm an active contributor on both wikis, for many years longer than yourself -- both wikis are non-commercial and open source -- in the past when I uploaded or found source I thought would be helpful to Wikipedia, I have provided a link here. I don't benefit in any way, so I think it's a stretch to call it spam or a COI. Anyway, I've wasted enough time on this, so considered it settled. --Quasipalm (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on this issue on my talk page at User talk:Glrx/Archive 1#Your poor behavior; NOTHOWTO doesn't apply to links. Glrx (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Google Search

Hi. You have Undid my new topic at the talk page about google search with explanation : WP:NOTFORUM. but this is talk page. I would like to show some properities of result which makes using it hard. It is possible to show short form of www adress but google search sometimes does not do it. Regards. --Adam majewski (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't use wikipedia talk pages for this. -- X7q (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Masterman

Hi, I see you created the page on Margaret Masterman. I was astonished to find it. I knew her and worked with her and have some additional information. Before I add it, please review the Margaret Masterman talk page where I have put my information. Robotics1 (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Internet Problem Solving Contest for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Internet Problem Solving Contest 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/Internet Problem Solving Contest 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. Msnicki (talk) 22:04, 15 June 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) 14:03, 24 November 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) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Internet Problem Solving Contest

Hello X7q,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Internet Problem Solving Contest for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

TheLongTone (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]