User talk:AliceNovak

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thanks!
Your new content on numerical algorithms looks very good. However, it was not linked from our existing articles very well, nor did it follow our formatting conventions. I fixed some of the things, and asked for help at WT:WPM. Thanks again! JackSchmidt (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Initial context-setting
"Gauss noticed that...." is really not a good way to start a Wikipedia article. I've changed it to the following:
 * In mathematics, the AGM method (for arithmetic-geometric mean) makes it possible to construct fast algorithms for calculation of elementary transcendental functions and some classical constants and in particular, to quickly calculate the constant $$ \pi $$.
 * Gauss noticed that[...]
 * Gauss noticed that[...]
 * Gauss noticed that[...]

etc. You need to tell the lay reader at the outset that mathematics is what the article is to be about. Sometimes "In algebra,..." or "In geometry,..." can suffice for that, but "In category theory,..." cannot, since the reader cannot be assumed to know what category theory is, nor who Gauss is.

I also indented all of the instances of "displayed" TeX. Thus:
 * $$ 1 + 1 = 2.\, $$
 * $$ 1 + 1 = 2.\, $$

is correct, whereas

$$ 1 + 1 = 2.\, $$

(unindented) is not. Things like this are codified at Manual of Style (mathematics). Michael Hardy (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Karatsuba phenomenon


The article Karatsuba phenomenon has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Little evidence of notability. Of the three references, two are papers written by Karatsuba, and the third was published 95 years before the "phenomenon" is stated to have been discovered, so it can scarcely demonstrate notability. Searches have likewise failed to unearth evidence of notability.

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 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 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Karatsuba phenomenon for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Karatsuba phenomenon 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 Articles for deletion/Karatsuba phenomenon 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

March 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Anatolii Alexeevitch Karatsuba. 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. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Tikiwont (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Consequently I declined your report at WP:AIV. Let me also add that personal attacks as in your post there, aren't acceptable either and may lead to blocking as well. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Actually you seem to have been reverting as IP before semi-protection was applied, so consider this your final warning, not to edit war.
 * Finally your edit summaries shows a few more misunderstandings about this place. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, the article is not yours and administrators don't approve article content. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not true: the administrators protect or don't protect, let such vandals like Stevenj spoiled the text and deleted the most part of it (why? his reasons are totally false) or blocked other persons. So you are wrong, administrators APPROVE or don't approve the texts of pages. Somebody from them are also not objective. If they would be, they would block at first Stevenj who was really a disruptive editor, not me.AliceNovak (talk) 09:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You've been asked to continue discussion at the article talk. Instead, you continued reverting your opponent, called him names and reported to AIV as a vandal; then blanked the article. Whatever is your issue, this is not the way to resolve it. Materialscientist (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the text under discussion existed 4 years and everybody was happy and some days ago Stevenj deleted it and wrote his own (and he is not an expert in number theory and fast algorithms, and I am expert in it), it would be preferably to put the original text (say, from 29.02.2012) back, and only after that to begin the discussion. The "civil" behavior of somebody would be presented if before deleting the text he would try to discuss about it with his opponents and tried to see their opinion also, not persuading only his own aims. I ask to unblock me, you blocked not right person, not me began this editing war!AliceNovak (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a misunderstuding! I never blancked this article! I tried to put the previous text in time when you introduced and blocked this my action. The blanck article could be only some secunds before I would put the previous text deleted by Stevenj. I ask you again. Please, don't let Stevenj to delete the most part of a very useful for many people article. Please, revert the text which was there more than 4 years, and which was still at 29.02.2012! Please, protect this text from vandals like Stevenj. I discussed with him about many things some years ago and also yeaterday --- he is not able to see the opinions which are not coincide with his ones. However, he present his opinions in many wiki-articles and nobody spolied them. Don't let him be disruptive editor of the present article. I would like to pay your attention, that at first 2.03.2012 he spoiled only a small fragment of the text--- deleting the source outside (Delahaye) and rewroting some sentences about fast algoeirthms. When I wrote additional information to his sentences, in revenge he deleted almost all text --- look at the history of the page, it was two days ago! I ask you to protect this text from the actions of Stevenj which have private, non-objective character!AliceNovak (talk) 10:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the text of the page under discussion existed 4 years and everybody was happy and then some days ago it was totally deleted by Stevenj, it would be preferably at first to return the text back and then to begin the discussion about it with Stevenj and other persons who want to delete it.I think, every objective administrator must be agree with it.AliceNovak (talk) 10:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Materialscientist (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I never blancked the article --- you do your actions in time when I tried to put the previous text there!AliceNovak (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I have the following suggestion to all administrators who will see this discussion. I can prove that reasons expressed by Stevenj to delete the most part of A.A. Karatsuba page (there are no sources outside, notability etc.) are false. If you unblock me, I will put in the small fragment of the text of Stevenj a few sentences with 3 sources outside. I think, Stevenj will try to delete it, proving my idea about his aims: he accept only such sources which confirm his opinion. I really can not understand, why many many people who made the wikipage about A.A. Karatsuba during 4 years are ignored by administrators of Wikipedia supporting Stevenj negative relation to this text?AliceNovak (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A few more considerations:
 * Waht you really fail to understand is that this block was only about your editing. Not about the article. Some of your edits have been reverted merely after other administrative measures such as semi-protection failed and you popped back in with an account to do the same or tried to even after a final warning. That is not meant as an endorsement of any versions.
 * I've reviewed above unblock request as it was malformed (since already marked as reviewed) and others were unlikely to see it but felt in necessary at this point to decline.
 * The problem with your latest post is lack of good faith with respect to other editors and administrators. Nor do you seem to agree to use the talk page to find consensus.
 * Saying that everybody was happy with the article for four years is a logical fallacy in any case. There is indeed a surprising number of accounts only interested in this area. Including you.
 * If not done so already review our policies on accounts and address that in any further unblock request. But keep in mind that this block expires anyways and getting a clear grip now may be better that resume editing as soon as possible, make more errors and get reblocked. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One issue I warned StevenJ about is calling you a troll, but for the rest he explained his edits both on the talk page and in response to your COI report. But you haven't answered, bad faith accusations apart. Adding something back, given appropriate sources and adherence to WP:NPOV, instead of reverting and/or re-insert rephrased versions is what he suggested there. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

About Stevenj explanations. As I wrote, they are no appropriate. He claimed one needs more sources outside, but when he made the first edition of the text at 3 of March, he just deleted such words of prof. Delahaye from his article in the journal "Pour la Science" (just a source outside) because by his opinion it was too good for A.A. Karatsuba. So from one side Stevenj requires additional sources to prove notability of results, from another side he deleted just such a source. If to compare the A.A. Karastuba page with other bio-pages, it has enough confirmation of notability of results etc. For example, let look at A.N. Kolmogorov page: "Andrey Nikolaevich Kolmogorov (Russian: Андре́й Никола́евич Колмого́ров) (25 April 1903 – 20 October 1987) [2][3] was a Soviet mathematician, preeminent in the 20th century, who advanced various scientific fields, among them probability theory, topology, intuitionistic logic, turbulence, classical mechanics and computational complexity." --- references [2],[3] are the obituaries:1 ^ "Academician Andrei Nikolaevich Kolmogorov (obituary)". Russian Mathematical Surveys 43: 1–9. 2. Parthasarathy, K. R. (1988). "Obituary: Andrei Nikolaevich Kolmogorov". If you believe one should to add the obituaries to the Karatsuba page and that these are necessary sources we can esily do it! Then we read "Around the same years (1936) Kolmogorov contributed to the field of ecology and generalized the Lotka–Volterra model of predator-prey systems.

In his study of stochastic processes (random processes), especially Markov processes, Kolmogorov and the British mathematician Sydney Chapman independently developed the pivotal set of equations in the field, the Chapman–Kolmogorov equations.

Later on, Kolmogorov changed his research interests to the area of turbulence, where his publications beginning in 1941 had a significant influence on the field. In classical mechanics, he is best known for the Kolmogorov–Arnold–Moser theorem (first presented in 1954 at the International Congress of Mathematicians). In 1957 he solved a particular interpretation of Hilbert's thirteenth problem (a joint work with his student V. I. Arnold). He was a founder of algorithmic complexity theory, often referred to as Kolmogorov complexity theory, which he began to develop around this time. " There are no references and sources there! And almoust all bio-pages are the same. And not only for scientists. Let look at the page dedicated to some problem in Number Theory (Stevenj deleted all part of the A.A. Karatsuba text in number theory). For example, this one :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_problem_(sieve_theory) " In number theory, the parity problem refers to a limitation in sieve theory that prevents sieves from giving good estimates in many kinds of prime-counting problems. The problem was identified and named by Atle Selberg in 1949. Beginning around 1996, John Friedlander and Henryk Iwaniec developed some parity-sensitive sieves that make the parity problem less of an obstacle." there are no sources and references. Then "Terence Tao gave this "rough" statement of the problem:[1]

Parity problem. If A is a set whose elements are all products of an odd number of primes (or are all products of an even number of primes), then (without injecting additional ingredients), sieve theory is unable to provide non-trivial lower bounds on the size of A. Also, any upper bounds must be off from the truth by a factor of 2 or more.

This problem is significant because it may explain why it is difficult for sieves to "detect primes," in other words to give a non-trivial lower bound for the number of primes with some property. For example, in a sense Chen's theorem is very close to a solution of the twin prime conjecture, since it says that there are infinitely many primes p such that prime p + 2 is either prime or the product of two primes. The parity problem suggests that, because the case of interest has an odd number of prime factors (namely 1), it won't be possible to separate out the two cases using sieves. " There are no references excluding the reference to Terence Tao words --- but where are the external sources proving that these words are notable? Where the sources outside proving that Terence Tao is a notable scientist at all?

I wrote you this with one aim : to prove that demands of Stevenj to the A.A. Karastuba page are absurd. It's possible to apply them to any Wiki-text, but this is absolutely useless. Because after introducing the additional sources, somebody can ask to introduce other sources proving that the first sources are notable etc. If Stevenj would tell that some fact or mathematical result is wrong on the A.A. Karatsuba page --- we could discuss it. But his pretensions, I am sure, have private character: he is not happy that A.A. Karatsuba is presented as a notable scientist.

Some years ago we discussed with him the problem of priority in fast algorithms, because he and his group wanted to prescribe the first fast method to another person, not to Karatsuba. I am sure, his actions with the A.A. Karatsuba text is a revenge.

Somebody discussed with him a paper where it's claimed the Gauss did the first FFT. However, when we found this paper --- original of Gauss, there are no Fast Fourier Transform, Discrete Fourier Transform or even ordinary Fourier Transform there, moreover there are no algorithms there. When one told it to Stevenj, he was very angry and told that it's written in some paper (Burrus+2) coauthors, so it's possible to put it in Wikipedia. However, when Burrus sent to us their paper we found, that there is claimed there something like that "if we add 3 equations to one Gauss equation we obtain...", but not that Gauss did it.

I can tell you, that if you add 2, not 3 equations, to ordinary multiplication algorithm, you obtain the first fast method --- the Karatsuba multiplication method, but people could not invent it during 4000 years of the history of mathematics.

So Stevenj is well-known with his opinions, and his behavior is not surprise, but I can not understand, why the administrators supported his position, protecting his actions with the text, not requiring from him more strong explanations and grounds for his actions. Why nobody recognized that such actions have private grounds? Nobody (including me) prevents him to write wrong things on his pages devoted to FFT etc., why we can not write right thing on the page devoted to A.A. Karatsuba? Nobody is proving the notability of many number-theoretic results presented in Wikipedia, why we must prove the notability of results of the most famous (by many opinions) russian mathematician of his time?AliceNovak (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you misunderstood. I wasn't asking you to 'prove' here something about another editor. This is your talk page where I gave you a warning, you asked me for advice at my talk, went nevertheless immediately ahead to edit, botched it up, got blocked, filed here an unblock request that didn't address the concerns and was declined, filed another one, botched it up, so that i was invisible, I was not convinced to lift your block but try to clear some things up for you so that things run better afterwards. Above has little to do with that.
 * If there is any issue with Stevenj's content editing on Wikipedia, you went all wrong about it. Consider dispute resolution. But if it is an US and THEM thing you won't get far. And in no case should there be YOUR and THEIR pages. But first continue discussing topics at the relevant talk pages sticking to issues, not persons, after the block expires, which I is all I invited you do.
 * And please try to proof read before you post.
 * In any case stick to the topic. I see no evidence of Stevenj removing Karatsuba material from Parity problem (sieve theory) or even editing it. So what on earth has Terence Tao to do with all this? Maybe he was quoted because another editor thought his was a good phrasing for free general public encyclopedia because that's what we're trying to here. And if not it gets changed. Whatever. I personally will only follow-up on anything like edit warring and personal attacks. Which you fortunately renounced above, so stick to that. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't tell you Stevenj removed the Karatsuba material from Parity problem, somebody else removed it from "Karatsuba phenomenon" to "Parity problem" which has no relation to the "Karatsuba phenomenon". Stevenj deleted almost all content of the page about A.A. Karatsuba and you and other administrators protected these actions of Stevenj. Above I tried to explain you why the explanations of Stevenj are false and his actions have private and malicious nature.AliceNovak (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

__NOINDEX__

Posting an editorial WP:OR screed into multiple articles constitutes blatant vandalism (not to mention the continued edit warring despite being warned and blocked above) hence the short block. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've revoked above block as StevenJ is the wrong person to block you and your edit may not have been intended as vandalism. Nevertheless you can't insert stuff like that into articles. Please check the OR link above and weigh your next steps carefully. Any further disruption will result in a substantial block. Use the talk pages in a constructive manner and consider to edit something relaxing whilst the Karatsuba article is locked. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)