User talk:Anita5192/Archive 1

Square number
Hi Anita5192, As I said in my edit summary, I removed it because I felt it was redundant. (In particular, it's already mentioned on the page that the highest power of a prime dividing a square must be even.) If you'd really like the words "canonical representation" to appear, my suggestion is to work them in to the existing paragraph in which parity of prime powers is discussed. All the best, --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've merged what you wrote into the paragraph I was referring to -- please feel free to edit to suit your tastes. Joel B. Lewis (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Lady of  Shalott  23:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Anita--I'm not going to pile on; I'm just going to say that without Mandarax this place would have fallen down in ruins a long time ago. And without the Lady, well, we'd all be little robots making little mechanical edits. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Stiff equation
You mentioned on my talk page that you did some work on our article on stiff equations. I never replied to this until now. I had a good look at the article and I see that you did much to improve it. So many thanks for your work. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Math template
Hi Anita! I saw that you removed usage of the math template in the article stiff equation since you said it doesn't display well on all terminals. Which terminal are you using and how does it display on that terminal since it doesn't look good? It's not good if it doesn't look good, since it's meant to be an improvement over "normal" HTML math. (I guess by terminal you mean web browser?) —Kri (talk) 05:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In Internet Explorer on laptops and workstations, several of the fonts used for math symbols show up with very thin strokes and in a different style. I try to make in-line math look as much as possible like the text in which it is embedded – much as a math textbook – by using mostly standard text and italics.  I only use other fonts for math when absolutely necessary (e.g., when the symbols do not exist in standard text) and then usually on a separate line.  I often go to another terminal to see if something looks different on another system.  I often compare what I am editing with other articles to see if other editors have frequently used a particular type font.  I recently spent a lot of time on the stiff equation article cleaning up some of the mixture of type fonts. — Anita5192 (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, that is not good. Maybe you should make a notification about that on the talk page of math, since there are a lot of articles that use it. —Kri (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That is an excellent idea.  Per your suggestion, I just copied my comment above, almost verbatim, to the math talk page. — Anita5192 (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

About Hom(X)
Hi, responded on my talkpage, which you are hopefully watching. Rschwieb (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Square number
Hi Anita5192,

The user you just reverted at square number is on something of an unpleasant tear at the moment (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics) but at least part of the edit you reverted should be unreverted: some content has moved to the (newly recreated) article square (algebra) where it fits somewhat better.

All the best, --JBL (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You might see here also (looks like Incnis Mrsi is after you... for no reason)... 20:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for the heads up. — Anita5192 (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

A New Study On Combination And Permutation
Dear Professor Anita

My Name is Vineet George. I have done extensive research on combination and permutation and found consistent and uniform result. This result which I have found is written on a book known as Junction (an art of counting combination and permutation). I want everyone to know my research work. So I am writing this letter for the Publication of my research work on wikipidia free encyclopidia.

To view my research work then log on to the site: https://sites.google.com/site/junctionslpresentation/home also view The subtabs of proofs https://sites.google.com/site/junctionslpresentation/proof-for-advance-permutation

I have also written about my research work on the talk tab of Permutation of wikipidia encyclopideia site at the bottom page.

I came to know about you from this talk tab of permutation site.

Hope you will consider my request.

Thanking You Vineet George --182.19.78.181 (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see the response on the Permutation talk page. — Anita5192 (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Matrix splitting
It's overly technical in places. The lead could be made more accessible by elucidating some of the terms in it in plain English. I'm talking about phrases like: "Many iterative methods (e.g., for systems of differential equations) depend upon the direct solution of matrix equations involving matrices more general than tridiagonal matrices. These matrix equations can often be solved directly and efficiently when written as a matrix splitting." I think the first sentence could be explained more clearly without having to resort to following wikilinks, for example. The following sections are similarly technical. They don't include any fuller background on how matrix splitting fits into linear algebra (under the WP:MOS, everything discussed in the lead must be included in the body of the article; the lead is meant as a brief summary of its contents). Furthermore, the equations come with very little introduction and explanation. In the first equation, it's not explained that we're trying to solve for x, and in any event what that solution would mean or how it would be expressed. The same sorts of issues persist throughout. The fact that other math articles are similarly obscure is no reason for all math articles to be obscure and inaccessible. See WP:OSE. --Batard0 (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The Academy
Hey there Anita! I'm Achowat and I'm one of the Instructors over at the CVU Academy and I'd be willing, if you want, to work with you. I'll watchlist here, so just let me know. Achowat (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Achowat. I am interested in rollback because twice now, in the course of reverting vandalism, I have reverted several consecutive edits by a single editor.  I would like to be able to revert such edits in a single edit, partly so that it will appear in the history as a single event, which will be neater to read, and also so that it will be quicker and easier to do.  Is there anything that I need to learn or practice before using rollback? — Anita5192 (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the important thing to know about Rollback is that it can only be used in case of obvious vandalism (and a few more, as found at WP:ROLLBACK). WP:Vandalism is a good place to start to find out exactly what the Wikipedia community does (and, perhaps more importantly, does not) consider vandalism. Give that a read over and let me know if you have any questions. Achowat (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have read WP:Vandalism several times before, but I just re-read it and I believe I understand the principles of identifying and responding properly to vandalism and misguided good-faith edits. I do not fully understand the links on the line
 * See the what links here pages for Insert text, Link title, Headline text, Bold text and Example Image to detect test edits. (see also toolbar experiments)
 * except for the what links here page. — Anita5192 (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So, on the edit page, there are these buttons that can be pressed (A bold capital B, and italicized capital I, etc), and often people who are making test edits just click those buttons and hit "save". They very, very rarely are used in an Encyclopedic way, and should be removed. (But remember, if Rollback is in your future, that Rollback cannot be used on test edits). I hope that answered your question. Achowat (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that explains it. Thank you.  Can rollback be used for successive, sloppy, good-faith edits?  Recently (Aug 13 2012) an editor made several edits and subsequently reverted them, but left a blank line in the Arithmetic function article.  To make sure I did not miss anything else in these edits, I decided that the safest way to make sure the article was returned to its proper state was to revert all the edits by that editor, although I assumed good-faith, because there was no obvious malicious editing.  Would it have been considered appropriate, in this case, to rollback the entire set of edits and label it as reverting good-faith edits? — Anita5192 (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with using the Rollback functionality is that, generally speaking, you don't get to leave an edit summary. It's helpful when dealing with Vandals because you use one click instead of 3, but the downside is a lack of edit summary. That's, primarily, the reason it can only be used for Vandalism, from banned users, and in a few other minor situations. Achowat (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I understand now.  This explains a lot.  What do I need to do to be granted the ability to use rollback? — Anita5192 (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the biggest thing is to have a good track record of high-quality vandalism reverts (with the correct accompanying warning from WP:WARN). Remember that Rollback doesn't allow edit summaries, so what I would suggest is, during your next Vandalism patrol, use the edit summary "rvv" (for ReVert Vandalism, a common term) any time you would use Rollback. I can then take a look at your edits and see if there are any issues. Achowat (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey there Anita! I see you've been doing some counter-vandalism, and that's great. This edit, specifically, you knocked out of the park. But these two seemed like good faith edits. Remember, Vandalism is the "willful attempt to harm the encyclopedia", which is a much, much stronger standard than non-constructive editing. You've been doing good work on user talk pages, but just remember that every use of Rollback (which, therefore, implies vandalism) should be followed by a User Talk Warning, or a report to AIV. Achowat (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I am still interested in rollback. I just made an attempt to revert multiple vandalism edits by 96.241.153.36 but it was very cumbersome to do and in the meantime another editor jumped in and cleaned up the entire mess, evidently with one stroke. — Anita5192 (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking over your recent vandalism reverts, it seems as though you have a strong handle on what is and is not vandalism. I don't think there would be a problem if you applied for the Rollback bit at WP:RFPP. If you would like to try Twinkle (which is a whole lot like Rollback), instead, I could help you with that process, as well. Let me know how it goes. Cheers! Achowat (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will look more closely at both and let you know what I think. — Anita5192 (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Your request for rollback
Hi Anita5192. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Mifter (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.
 * Thank you! [[Image:Smile.png|20px]] — Anita5192 (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Anita
Please stop undoing the edits I do to my own comment. Do you see me vandalizing your own comments, or anyone else's, for that matter ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.214.3 (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't you rather have an official account? Then you would not have to keep editing your own comments. There are standard accepted protocols at Wikipedia.  For example, using the link at the top of the page to insert a new section, instead of manually inserting it out of chronological order. — Anita5192 (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No.. because I rarely edit anything, and -when I do- it's usually something small, like a typo, or a mis-spelled link, etc. So, even if I would have an account, I wouldn't bother typing some 30+ characters (name/e-mail and password) just to make some tiny insignificant correction of a single character. As for the New Section, I don't think it was there a few years back, so I'm not accustomed to using it. I also didn't remember anymore whether the order was chronologically ascendant or descendant, since it's been quite a few years since I last left a comment on the Talk page. — Craciun Lucian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.233.239 (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, if you want to make it easy for yourself, then I suggest that when you make a comment on a talk page, you do exactly what you just did with your last comment above: sign it "Craciun Luciun", let the SignBot sign it, then leave it alone after that, even if you make multiple comments in the same section.  That will be even faster for you and it will not be perceived as covering up your identity.  By the way, since you do not have an account, you may not have seen the message I posted at User talk:79.113.218.157.  Whatever you do, I wish you well with your editing. — Anita5192 (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Michael Kitces for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Kitces 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/Michael Kitces 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.

Hi Anita - the reason I'm notifying you about this is that you have edited Roth IRA, to which Michael Kitces, via his Wikipedia persona User:Finplanwiki, is adding original research and using his own website as a reference. He seems to be on Wikipedia for the purposes of self-promotion, as evidenced by the fact that User:Finplanwiki created the Michael Kitces article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the information, Red Hat. My initial impression of the page Michael Kitces is that it should be deleted for two reasons:  1. The person described does not appear to be noteworthy.  2. The sources cited are all web sites, which are not generally as reliable as many other types of sources, and their sheer number lends no further credibility.  If this person truly is noteworthy, then surely there is reliable documentation elsewhere. If I comment on the page, Articles for deletion/Michael Kitces, I will first carefully review the relevant Wikipedia guidelines and try to be as objective as possible. — Anita5192 (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Anita. The link should have been Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Kitces_(2nd_nomination), should you choose to chime in with your views.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I am a planner in the industry, not Kitces, I just use his work in my practice and am a fan so I wrote his bio. Been through this with an AfD nomination of his biography already, which was overturned when it was determined that I am not Kitces. Don't understand why this is being reopened again just because I quote his stuff. Finplanwiki (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Schuhplattler organizations


The article List of Schuhplattler organizations has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Every link an external link. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LINKFARM apply, however good the intentions of providing the information.

While all constructive 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. Fiddle  Faddle  09:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)   Fiddle   Faddle  09:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have read some of the links listed above and I understand now why Wikipedia is not the place for such an extensive list of external links. — Anita5192 (talk) 06:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry
I apolagize for my revision on linear system equations. I made a mistake whilst doing some work and tried to see the article and thought to correct it. In turn i was wrong and tried to undo my edit and forgot about one of the lines. You may delete this after reading it.

SahilK7654 (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)SahilK7654SahilK7654 (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Harmonic oscillator
Respectfully, I fail to understand how the link to springs in series and parallel is not relevant for the page on the harmonic oscillator. Skater00 (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article about harmonic oscillator is about harmonic oscillators specifically, not springs in general. Springs are related to harmonic oscillators, but then so are other things.  Also, the article series and parallel springs describes a specific aspect of springs, not springs in general.  Harmonic oscillator already links to springs.  The concept of series and parallel springs adds nothing essential to harmonic oscillator.  Harmonic oscillators can be understood without knowing anything about series and parallel springs.  That is why I removed the link.  The link to series and parallel springs belongs more properly under spring (device). — Anita5192 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:OUP access
Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to Oxford University Press's humanities materials through the TWL partnership described at WP:OUP. You should have recieved a Wikipedia email from User:Nikkimaria several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved.

Divisor function
You reverted my edit on divisor function. I deleted the category number theory because it is already included in the more precise category divisor function. The category number theory has quite many entries, and hence it is good with more specific categories. K9re11 (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, then I will leave it as it is, since I do not have a strong feeling about this. However, I believe the general categories should be listed as well as the more specific categories, so that readers can see all the categories to which the subject matter belongs.  In any case, readers do not have to read all the entries of the general category number theory. — Anita5192 (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert
I agree with your revert on ODE. Someone had that material in differential equations, and I was removing it as part of a cleanup. However, there was a template pointing to it (the template links "degree" and "order" separately), so I took it out and put it in ODE. I think the best solution is just to delete the portion of the template referring to 'degree'.Brirush (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the link to "degree" in the template.Brirush (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Abelian group
Hello. You reverted my edit to add Non-abelian group to the "see also" list. I was aware that there is a link in the lead, but to find it you have to search the text and notice the "counterparts". So I think it helps to have this as one of the half-dozen related topics. Is there a rule somewhere that that anything mentioned in the lead cannot appear lower down the page? Incidentally, this might have been because I typed in 'non-commutative group', which is mentioned as another name, but which, unlike 'noncommutative group' does not redirect. (Please reply here) Imaginatorium (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in
Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:


 * Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see HighBeam/Citations
 * Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in
Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:


 * Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
 * When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
 * Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in
Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:


 * Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
 * When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
 * Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of 10:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

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) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ellipse - parametric equation
Hi Anita,

I noticed you undid my undo of an edit to the narrative about the parametric equation for an ellipse in the early part of the page on Ellipses.

If you look at the larger section further down the page entitled Parametric Form in Canonical Position, it says: "Note that the parameter t (called the eccentric anomaly in astronomy) is not the angle of (X(t),Y(t)) with the X-axis." This is correct. The narrative I removed, which was only added recently, contradicts this; it says that theta (or 't') is the angle between the ray connecting the origin to (x,y). As far as I understand, t (or theta) is the angle between the blue line and the x-axis in the animation in the section I refer to above.

Perhaps I misunderstood the narrative, so could you explain how the points (x, y) can be replaced with a.cos(t) and b.sin(t) where t is the angle at the origin between the ray through (x,y) and the positive x-axis?

Thanks! BlueEventHorizon (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right. My main concern was that $$\theta$$ was not defined before it was used in the equations.  I have now tried to make this more clear by defining $$\theta$$ and repeating some of what is written later about the eccentric anomaly.  It is unfortunate, however, that the entire section uses $$\theta$$ as the parameter instead of t, which is confusing.  Perhaps this should be changed throughout the section.  What do you think? — Anita5192 (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that the article should consistently use 't' or $$\theta$$ throughout. Given that there is a whole section on the parametric representation further down the page, perhaps it should not even be addressed in the earlier section we have been making changes to. I am not really familiar with the protocols of editing pages, so I rarely get involved unless I see something that affects me directly (I was trying to solve Project Euler problem 525, so I was researching ellipses!). Anyway, you clearly have a lot more experience with this stuff, so I will defer to your judgement. BlueEventHorizon (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Stiff equation Comment
Hello Anita5192. I readded the scholarpedia link, which works on my computer, in the external links section. I do not know why the link appears as a dead link on your computer. The link may have been temporarily unavailable.


 * Stiff systems Lawrence F. Shampine and Skip Thompson Scholarpedia, 2(3):2855.	10.4249/scholarpedia.2855

Thank you, --CuriousMind01 (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems fine now. Thank you for moving it. — Anita5192 (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy
Congrats Anita ! —Dev A nand Sadasivamt@lk 04:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! — Anita5192 (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

personal comments
it wasn't giberish ,perhaps you could have called it unrelated content, but it certainly isn't giberish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crlinformative (talk • contribs) 16:22, March 29, 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, it may not have been complete gibberish, but it was so sloppy it was barely readable, not closely related, and did not belong on the talk page. There is more than one person who has been posting such drivel on talk pages lately, and most editors seem to be afraid to remove it.  The next time this happens, if the content is not completely incomprehensible, I will use a different comment if I remove it. — Anita5192 (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

If there is a grammatical error should not you correct that error instead of deleting the whole statement? It takes quite a bit of effort to type into Wikipedia with a touch screen. I would appreciate it if you were to simply tell me which statements confuse you.(Crlinformative (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for May 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mirage (1965 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anne Seymour. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Fixed. — Anita5192 (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Dreieckkonstruktion
Servus Anita,

zuerst ein herzliches Dankeschön für deine Verbesserungen in meinen Beiträgen in Englisch. Da mein erlerntes Schulenglisch leider schon sehr weit zurückliegt, benutze ich für meine Wiki-Beiträge in Englisch den "Google-Übersetzer". Mich freut es sehr, dass ich in deinem Profil von deinen Deutschkenntnissen (deshalb habe ich hier meine Muttersprache gewählt) und von deinem Interesse an Geometrie lesen konnte. Ich wäre dir sehr dankbar, wenn du mich bei folgendem Thema "Dreieckkonstruktion" unterstützen könntest. Dazu sieh dir bitte in meiner Sandbox einen Entwurf an, noch in Deutsch, vielleicht siehst du in welchem Artikel, nach evtl. erforderlichen Änderungen, das Thema gut passen würde. Mit vielen Grüßen aus München Petrus3743 (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Servus, Petrus,


 * Im erstend Abschnitt, "Konstruktion," kann ein Dreieck nicht eindeutig aus dem vorletzten Fall, "Zwei Seiten und ein anliegender Winkel (SSA)," konstruiert sein. Dieser Fall ist doppelsinnig.


 * Ich kann die restlichen Abschnitte nicht verstehen. Sie scheinen viel zu kompliziert für ein einfaches Dreieck.  Ich glaube dass Sie am Anfang angeben sollten, genau was Sie wollen beweisen, und warum.


 * Glückliche Bearbeitung! — Anita5192 (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Danke, ich habe meine Antwort vom 18:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC) hier gelöscht und in Petrus3743-sandbox-talk eingetragen.
 * Bitte tragen Sie Ihre Gedanken/Verbesserungsvorschläge auch darin ein. Grüße aus dem sonnigen München Petrus3743 (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Danke Anita für Ihre Wünsche, aber ich finde leider keine Möglichkeit diesen Spezialfall in Wikipedia einzuarbeiten (keine geeignete Seite, Beitrag wird mit den erforderlichen Informationen zu lang). Die Sandbox wird mit deren Diskussionsseite gelöscht. Liebe Grüße Petrus3743 (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tone (literature), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barron's. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you! It is fixed now.—Anita5192 (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Need help on the Ellipse article
Since you previously reverted an edit which I also did, could you please weigh in on the talk page for Ellipse. There are two "signed" editors as well as an anonymous editor who I think are the same person, and it is getting a little frustrating that we are not converging. Thanks. (Also note that this subject is evidently referred to in the above section.) LaurentianShield (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Think, Anita Rivas, before you accuse and talk!
Do not rush to act and refrain from carelessly exposing your thoughts and accusations, so as your reputation is not ruined. Then even getting forever blocked from editing Wikipedia ever again would not salvage it, once you flush it on your own. Keep in mind that people, smarter than you, might be watching. DO NOT REMOVE EDITS THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. Be modest and leave scientific discourse for more capable editors. I hope you'll learn your lesson quickly, so as we can declare this issue clarified but closed.PseudoScientist (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * According to David Eppstein, as of 17 Jul 2016, and  have now been blocked for confirmed sockpuppetry. — Anita5192 (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Is cube is not small part of cuboid?
Having equal dimensions a cuboid is called a square.Are you agree with my argument if not why?Nagric (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * If I understand your question, here are my beliefs, based upon my mathematical experience. Since cube is a special case of cuboid, cuboid merits its own page.  Since cube occurs with great frequency in mathematics literature (in fact, greater than cuboid) it merits its own page. — Anita5192 (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Hi Anita5192, thanks for your thanks for my edits at Articles for deletion/Right circular hollow cylinder

Coolabahapple (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC) 

Disambiguation link notification for October 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Action fiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mystery. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you! It is now fixed.—Anita5192 (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Heading names for appendices
Please stop making changes like this without discussing first. The scheme I used is not contrary to WP:FNNR as your edit summary suggests. The guideline actually says. Standardising them is an issue that has been frequently rejected by the community, see. Changing between acceptable styles without a substantial reason is explicitly prohibited by the MOS at WP:STYLEVAR and MOS:STYLEVAR. Consequently, I have reverted your edit. SpinningSpark 18:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hyperbola
Anita, Thanks for your hawk eyes; I am the 68.98.184.101 and wonder if the following needs fixing; "The distance from either focus to either asymptote is b, the semi-minor axis;..." should IMO per all previous discussion have 'focus' replaced by 'vertex' at minimum, and might be clearer by saying "The distance from either vertex to either of its asymptotes is b,...."? Jedwin 68.98.184.101 (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I just changed one line to read correctly, "The distance b (not shown) is the length of the perpendicular segment from either focus to the asymptotes." It is unfortunate that the diagram does not show b or θ.  The line which reads, "The distance from either focus to either asymptote is b . . ." is already correct.—Anita5192 (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Anita, A*A + B*B == C*C cannot exist if the focus is used because it is not a right triangle; and also, C is already the distance from the center to the focus that is actually A*(E-1) beyond A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.184.101 (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * b is the distance from a focus to an asymptote, i.e., the perpendicular distance, hence the triangle is a right triangle. Imagine taking the triangle with base from C to the vertex and a right angle at the vertex, and flipping it over.  If you do the math, you will see that it is correct.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Interantional Society for Research on Emotions
Hi Anita

I moved the TOC to the top and added a new heading: International Society for Research on Emotions. This is the major international society in the field and its members include all the living scholars cited in this article. Please correspond with me before taking any action.

Cheers Neal Ashkanasy Nealash (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * What is your reasoning behind rearranging Emotion in a non-standard layout? Please discuss this on the Emotion talk page and be more specific in you edit summaries. — Anita5192 (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

TOC should no be so far down the page that users can;t find it. Nealash (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Message from visitors
Good morning (my local time)! You have reverted my edits on two pages. The edits were required, as "vOICe" is actually "The vOICe Auditory Display technology", according to the inventor's product website. Also, Wikipedia reads lowercase and uppercase words differently. THE VOICE & The Voice are not the same ones. They are made the same because of appropriate redirects. I am okay with your edits, if THE VOICE did not lead to a page that existed - I have forgotten the context and objective, but please don't direct me to rules, like WP:DABSTYLE and WP:DABENTRY. Madam, common sense is far better than rules. No hurt or insult is intended by my present post. Instead, your noble intent is acknowledged and appreciated. Regards. Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

How to be helpful
What would be helpful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subuey (talk • contribs) 02:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Since you are new to Wikipedia editing (you just began editing today), I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the protocol that editors follow to improve Wikipedia and make it readable and friendly for all. For starters, you should read the articles at the links that other editors have put on your talk page.  Everything important I can think of for a beginner is already listed there.  Happy editing!  — Anita5192 (talk) 04:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not just begin editing. rediculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subuey (talk • contribs) 19:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Dialogue
Items in disambiguation pages do not have to be a link. Several items in Dialogue (disambiguation) are not links. Every item should have a blue link but not necessarily the first word. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC) May you please answer? --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Your edit also was not formatted properly. I just inserted a link to the Publications section of Phi Sigma Tau, so now it is a link.—Anita5192 (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, but it did not "have to" be a link. As I said, every item should have a blue link but not necessarily the first word. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Etymology of sine
Hi Anita, you recently reverted a revert of mine and provided citations to dictionaries. I would like you to reconsider based on the etymology section of the same article and the authority of the mathematical historians Victor Katz and Florian Cajori. This etymology has been well studied by specialists and the terms that I objected to do not appear as primary translations in this work. Since there is a referenced section on this topic, I did not feel that it was necessary to provide my references in the lead and putting in dictionaries as sources just underlines the need to use more specialized sources. Thanks --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, take a peek at History of trigonometry. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have put the original version back in place, because the sources in the etymology section appear to be more dependable. Thank you for pointing this out to me.—Anita5192 (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Arithmetic function
Dear Anita,

The articla was reverted back, because one had no reference for the entropy $$H_f$$ being additive. This I changed by giving a proof that the entropy $$H_f$$ is always additive. So I think it is fair to revert it back and include the passage about the entropy. I don't want to change it back on my own, but it would be nice if you revert it back.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.69.187.201 (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Please see the discussion on the Arithmetic function talk page.—Anita5192 (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Mathematics Definition
Hi Anita5192, I see you have a problem with my contribution of a Mathematics Definition. "Posting nonsense is not helpful" please point out to me what in that definition is inaccurate or nonsense?

Respectfully 105.233.35.66 (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 2010s
Hi User:Anita5192, do you know how some of the side images on the number ones article can be rephrased, like the Ed Sheeran one near the bottom, how can it be phrased to include his 2014 number ones "Sing" and "Thinking Out Loud" please?--Theo Mandela (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The captions all seem too verbose. Rather than trying to include several of their hit songs, I would describe the songs in the main text of the article and have the captions briefly describe only the artist.  There are guidelines at Manual of Style/Captions, Manual_of_Style, and Manual of Style/Images.—Anita5192 (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Anita5192, I try to avoid having to phrase sentences, or even captions on articles because I'm not good at it, but it looks like it's your strongpoint, so if your not too busy can you please edit at least the last couple of captions for Drake, Sheeran and Luis Fonsi?--Theo Mandela (talk) 05:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but...
About this revert, I realize the changed way was correct, but it was a 10+ year old comment by someone else on a talk page. It's certainly not a big deal, but that's why I put it back. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

seeking 2 quick answers, please
What program do you use to create matrix notation?

How should we formalize the maximization of the sum future freedom of action (n = number of actions) for all individuals (I)? max &sigma I &sub n?

TY 2001:48F8:29:0:74AE:E60D:6335:4C22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * To typeset matrices, you can either go to WP:MATH, scroll down to "Fractions, matrices, multilines," and read the typesetting instructions; or simply look at the text used to generate matrices in an existing article.
 * I don't understand your second question.
 * Happy editing!—Anita5192 (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

/* Mersenne numbers in nature and elsewhere */ pyramid charts
I did. Must i repeat myself to everyone individually? i do not need a citation for alt text for an image from which the fact is immediately verifiable. read what i wrote carefully and please try understand it by trying it for yourself, because it is not wrong. Please provide an improvement as there is no valid reason for its removal, only improvement. I don't have time for petty irrelevant squabbling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulprit001 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrong Pseudocode
Hi Anita,

You have been reverting edits on Julia_set.

I do not know why you are doing this, because the provided source code is just wrong and will not produce the wanted results under any circumstances.

I cannot think of any reason to revert those changes.

However I can understand that you do not want to use the naming conventions from an external site, but please let me (or others) correct the code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daknuett (talk • contribs) 17:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * What is so special about the new variable names that the new names produce the desired results while the old ones do not? Also, please leave an edit summary for each edit per WP:EDSUM and sign your posts to talk pages per WP:TPYES.—Anita5192 (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If you use x0 and y0 as variables but assign only to x and y the code does not work. So If I change the variable names to the same name they produce the desired result. In Addition c must be assumed to be complex, so one has to add the real resp the imaginary part, changing c to cx and cy. However I have made some other changes, because for instance x0*x0 - y0*y0 + x0 will produce a function that is not even holonomic (and it is not Re(z^2)). As you might see this is not just renaming some variables. &#32;Daknuett (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Yours Daniel


 * I have put your pseudocode back in. Thank you for explaining what you did.  In the future, please explain any edit you make if it is extensive and if it is not obvious what you are doing or why.  Cheers!—Anita5192 (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Locations of major publishers
Hi, For the article Boolean ring, you asked why I removed the locations of two publishers, Addison-Wesley and Allyn and Bacon. The answer is that the locations are (i) potentially wrong, because major publishers publish the same book in different countries, and (ii) of little value, especially given that the publisher is wikilinked. Knowledge of publisher location was valuable generations ago, and still might be valuable nowadays for small publishers. BetterMath (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Emotions
Re: This. Indignation is on the list twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.116.45 (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I reverted your edit because you did not explain your deletion of text. I have put it back the way it was after your deletion. In the future, please leave an edit summary per WP:EDSUM to explain what you are doing and why.  Cheers!—Anita5192 (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Multiple interwiki links
Hello, you reverted one of my edits where I included an interwiki link. It was already mentioned in the text above.

Is there a Wikipedia guideline that states not to include multiple interwiki link to the same page? From my point of view it is rather helpful to have those as I can imagine that many people jump right into a specific section rather than to read articles from top to bottom?! HerrHartmuth (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Kind regards :)


 * I removed the second link to iterative method per MOS:OVERLINK because “iterative method” is mentioned eight times throughout the article, is linked in the lead, and since matrix splittings are only (so far) used in iterative methods, any reader will know this, whether they read past the lead or jump into another section. If you insist on reinserting it, I will not remove it again, but I don’t think it helps.  Cheers.—Anita5192 (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Help please
Sorry to bother you. I have a requested move at Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions. Could you please comment on my move request? Thanks. Brian Everlasting (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * By the time I saw this requested move, it was already closed. I would have opposed it, as the actual meaning of "misconception" has nothing to do with gender.—Anita5192 (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Removal of my edit
A recent edit by myself in the Special Properties section is found to be removed. My edit contained reference to the publication where the result appeared with mathematical proof. The same is also available on the net. I don't see why it has been removed. Devadatta Joardar (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The citation is not complete. What is the periodical or the URL?—Anita5192 (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The name of the periodical is At Right Angles, published by Azim Premji University, Bangalore, India. All this information was given as Reference. Moreover, the article as well as the periodical are available on the net. If anyone has any doubt about the authenticity of either the result or the reference one should do a checking. I feel harassed by such summary rejection. Devadatta Joardar (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I have reinserted the property. The way it was originally formatted, the periodical was not clear, so I reformatted it.  Cheers!—Anita5192 (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I looked at the source and the proof is straightforward and easy to verify.—Anita5192 (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * That doesn't matter. Unless it's in a reliably published source, it's original research. And it's not just the correctness, but the significance of this claim that we would look to the source to provide some evidence of. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't find Mr David Eppstein's reasons strong enough for the rejection. I thank both of you for the scrutiny, but I'd repeat that the source is a well known math periodical in India and the result has been established by mathematical proof along with two examples and is also verifiable independently. Devadatta Joardar (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * If you wish to pursue this further, you should continue this discussion on the Pythagorean triple talk page, instead of here.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Untitled
May I know what wrong Did I do MasterOfRagas (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * What are you referring to?—Anita5192 (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

127.0.0.1
That's localhost, obvious trolling. — Paleo  Neonate  – 02:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Divisor function: table
The new table is much better understandable than the old ones. Have you really had a look at it? It contains all functions up to x=4 and explains all the eaxmples in the text.

It also contains the prime factorization of n, which helps readers to understand the formulas. Wolfk.wk (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * An old table was still in the article. The tables were adjacent.  Can you please format the new table better before inserting it, and replace "=" with "factorization?"—Anita5192 (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There are 4 tables on the old page. The first table is different from the other 3, because it lists every number n=1..16 in one line, and contains comments. This table was retained. The other three list sigma_0 ... sigma_2. These 3 tables I had replaced with one, which contains all sigma_x up to x=4 and which imO is much better readable.
 * What do you mean with "format better"? Of course, the '=' could be be replaced by 'factorization'. I did not do this, simply because this heading blows up the column width, and this extedends the width of the whole table.Wolfk.wk (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The two tables were side by side and looked sloppy. Did you mean to retain the old table?  If so, they should have been consecutive instead of adjacent.—Anita5192 (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not agree, that two tables side by side 'look sloppy'. Instead, I think is comfortable for readers, to use the free space on a web page on the right side of one table (exactly for this reason Wikipedia has introduced the feature 'float right' for tables and images, which I used here). It allows more fluent reading, without having too much scrolling.Wolfk.wk (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Revert on Matrix (mathematics)
Hello Anita, I noticed you reverted an edit I made to the article on "Matrix (mathematics)". I'm not sure how best to refer to the reversion except including this link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matrix_(mathematics)&oldid=prev&diff=860628661&diffmode=source

With my edit I was trying to correct a common conceptual error made in the article. A matrix is defined as a kind of data structure -- a kind of array. A holor is a generalization of this kind of data structure, including arrays of arbitrary shape and dimension and indices. A tensor, on the other hand, is not defined as a data structure; it is a geometric object that has certain properties, independent of choice of basis vectors. A tensor can be expressed as a holor, but it is not the same thing as a holor -- not every holor is a tensor.

I'm hoping we can discuss this and come to a consensus to decide what information to leave on the Matrix article. As it stands now with the reversion, I think it is conceptually misleading.

Zeroparallax (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Your argument is compelling. However, I have never heard of a holor before; I could not find anything describing it on the internet; the article, Parry Moon, to which holor is redirected, is supported only by sources attributable to one person, Parry Moon; and so it appeared to be original research and I reverted its inclusion in Matrix (mathematics).—Anita5192 (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Anita, for the consideration and reply. Although the term "holor" is not yet generally popular online, it can be found online with an academic literature search (e.g., using Google Scholar to find various published papers using the term), and it is presented at length in at least one book, published by Cambridge University Press, authored by an emeritus professor of mathematics (Domina Spencer) and an engineer (Parry Moon) -- the book where the term was coined. I actually found the term "holor" helpful and used it in my own dissertation (which helped me to earn a PhD in physics).  It seems to me that there is great confusion about the term "tensor", and the concept of a "holor" is very helpful in illuminating what a tensor is by showing what a tensor is not, and by showing the larger context that tensors reside in.  The term "holor" is what some people are reaching for when they erroneously use the term "tensor".  (It's not always simply a different usage of the word "tensor"; it can be a self-contradicting usage that invalidates the usage.)  Thus, I find the term "holor" to be very conceptually important, even if it is not yet easily found online.


 * You can find some other people who agree with this sentiment by reading the reviews of the book "Theory of Holors", where it is noted how helpful the terminology and book is for understanding tensors and related concepts: https://www.amazon.com/Theory-Holors-Parry-Hiram-Moon/product-reviews/0521245850


 * If we change the article back to referring to holors, I could add some more text to clarify the conceptual issue (as I did here, above), regarding data-structure definitions versus geometric-object definitions. Maybe I could also add references to the page (Parry Moon) that explains holors, pointing to independent published articles that use the term "holor".


 * Zeroparallax (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you begin a discussion at Talk:Matrix (mathematics), repeat what you described above, and wait for other editors to reply. I do not have a problem with the content that you want to add, but I do have a problem with verifiability and consensus.  The sources cited on the Parry Moon page are all by the same person, and are primary sources.  The reference to holor in the Matrix (mathematics) article would be much more verifiable if secondary sources by several authors other than the originator of the term were cited.  See WP:PSTS.—Anita5192 (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Anita. I like that suggestion.  I've been adding to the section on holors additional references to primary sources and to secondary sources by several authors other than the originators.  I'll probably get around to beginning a discussion at Talk:Matrix (mathematics) sometime soon.


 * Zeroparallax (talk) 06:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

User https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Continued_fraction&diff=next&oldid=864018577
Hi! I'm reaching you because of following correction! The thing is that it's not about being more general it's about being correct - the requirement to be this number irrational is important here. Here's the quote from the relevant article:

The hypothesis that ξ is irrational cannot be omitted. Moreover the constant {\displaystyle \scriptstyle {\sqrt {5}}} \scriptstyle {\sqrt {5}} is the best possible; if we replace {\displaystyle \scriptstyle {\sqrt {5}}} \scriptstyle {\sqrt  {5}} by any number {\displaystyle \scriptstyle A>{\sqrt {5}}} \scriptstyle A>{\sqrt  {5}} and we let {\displaystyle \scriptstyle \xi =(1+{\sqrt {5}})/2} \scriptstyle \xi =(1+{\sqrt  {5}})/2 (the golden ratio) then there exist only finitely many relatively prime integers m, n such that the formula above holds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabunc~enwiki (talk • contribs) 12:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * As you can see, I have already reverted my edit because Hurwitz's theorem (number theory) confirms your edit that &xi; be irrational.—Anita5192 (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

User talk:68.108.4.245: Difference between revisions
RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_fencing

I have been updating this article to 2018 terminology and information.

You are removing my link as a reference - and are labeling it as spam.

I am following the same standards as the other references that are listed. One of them is a fence company. Their link simply points to a blog page of theirs. My link points to a page on a website that has a full page of information on aluminum fence. So the link I am posting is the same as the other links.

I am not sure where you would get reputable information about a product like aluminum fence other than from a fence company or fence manufacturer. There is no national organization on aluminum fence that would be a sole reputable source.

I also see fence companies being used as references on other wiki fence articles about pool fence such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pool_fence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.4.245 (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia appreciates your interest in improving the articles, but there are standards for citations as well as content, style, etc. The mere existence of something in other articles is not sufficient justification for more of the same.  Sometimes articles need work simply because no editor has yet gotten around to fixing them.  The articles Pool fence and Aluminum fencing both need more citations to reliable sources, but not commercial web sites or blogs.  I am not sure where to find reputable information about a product like an aluminum fence either, but I would probably start with a public library.—Anita5192 (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok - then you should remove the other two references - as they both sell a product and/or service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.4.245 (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Most editors do not have time to fix everything, which is why many articles are in a state of flux. If you want to research the fence articles, you are welcome to replace the existing references with better references.—Anita5192 (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * That doesn't make sense Anita - you are willing to remove the reference I put in there due to "link spam" but you won't remove the other links that violate the rules you are telling me? Are you saying I should be the one to remove the references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.4.245 (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Anita - I see that you have removed another reference that links to a non commercial website. If you are going to remove these references - then you have to remove ALL commercial links / references on the article page. If you are following a set of rules for Wikipedia - you have to apply the rules to all references on the article. The other two references are linking to commercial websites - which you saying is against the rules. Please remove the other references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.4.245 (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Active and passive rotation
I'm aware my english is poor, but wouldn't it be better you improve my language? The example I added definitely shows more than the 2-dimensional introductory example. Madyno (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * A second example for Active and passive transformation is unnecessary, and the existing example in two dimensions is simple and easy to understand, beside the English grammar issues.—Anita5192 (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, the example is in 3D, is numerical, and clearly shows the difference in meaning of the same coordinates as result of active or passive rotation. So, what's your objetion? Madyno (talk) 10:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Emotion edits - edit summary
thanks Anita. jcjc777 JCJC777 (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * You’re welcome. Thank you for all your diligent work on Emotion!  [[Image:Smile.png|20px]] —Anita5192 (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Original Research in Natural Convection Page
You recently marked the section I added onto page for Natural Convection, [|Water Convection at Freezing Temperatures], as possible original research. To my knowledge, I kept within the guidelines to avoid this. All the information presented in the section originates from a 1999 paper where the investigators experimentally observed the title phenomenon and then modeled it computationally. The paper has been cited by numerous other researchers in the field of computational fluid dynamics. How can I improve the section? I appreciate your help. Egasmen (talk | contribs) 03:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * If the paper you cited has been cited by numerous other researchers, then the best way to improve the section would be to cite several sources by different researchers (for example, three or four), rather than just the one you cited.—Anita5192 (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I have added a few more sources which all support the information presented. Is this sufficient? Thanks again for your help. Egasmen (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The new sources appear to be excellent. Thank you for your attention to detail and accuracy.  Happy editing!  —Anita5192 (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the help! Egasmen (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Brackets at Mersenne prime
Hi Anita5192,

In this edit you replaced a bunch of "i.e." and "e.g." (for which, thanks), but you also swapped some [ ] pairs for. Some (all?) of these occur inside of quotation marks, and I am mildly concerned that you have now changed the meaning of the quote, attributing the parenthetical to the quoted source rather than to WP editors. But I wanted to check that you agree before I revert. What do you think?

All the best, JBL (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this out. I have put the brackets back, in case they were actually supposed to be brackets.—Anita5192 (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you! --JBL (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Disputed??
Hi, On 8 October 2017, you added a disputed tag to Jordan normal form but did not explain on the talk page what you thought was incorrect. Do you recall what that might have been? Could you explain it there? I'm trying to figure out whether I should remove the disputed tag or not. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I replied at Talk:Jordan normal form.—Anita5192 (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Romance novel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Compass Books ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Romance_novel check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Romance_novel?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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) 09:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Calc Mistake
I apologize for my clumsiness, your attentiveness to your page is admirable. I must have accidentally deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George.Branham (talk • contribs) 20:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Topology error
Hello, Anita

It was an error on my part (in more ways than one) and I apologise.

First of all, I wasn't logged-in and didn't realise it. Second, I thought I was making a small correction of a typo, but I see now I hadn't read the sentence carefully enough (the sentence seemed a bit awkward to me at the time).

Btw, in the article (which is a very good one) I think the example of the circle and the doughnut not being homeomorphic is not the best choice because they don't have the same dimension as manifolds. It seems obvious that they aren't the same whereas that's not quite so true of the doughnut and the sphere (say).

Kind regards,

Nicholas Aliotra (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay. Please be careful.  Happy editing!  —Anita5192 (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Critical
the discussion of a renewable source of anti-matter for shielding is critical to prevent inner and extra dimensional cosmic/human bombardment! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.25.165 (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Red links
Hi! Re: this edit, I believe red links are usually supposed to be there. Red_links states the following:

"In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing article, or article section, under any name. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic (see Notability – Whether to create standalone pages). "

Do you think this topic is not viable for an article?

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I have reinserted the link in case someone creates the article.—Anita5192 (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Removal of edits
You recently removed an edit of mine, saying that the page address did not work. I have had several other users try this address and it works for them. Also, it is a link to a peer-reviewed online journal, Religions. How is that spam?? Please advise.Jeanninegrimm (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You should read WP:Spam and WP:Conflict of Interest as suggested on your talk page. Harold the Sheep (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The following two links resulted in "404 Not Found." When I removed your spam, I removed these as well.  Thus, the edit summary, "Removed spam and link to nonexistent page."—Anita5192 (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Definition of Reader-Response Criticism
 * short definition and method

reverted revision
Hi. You have reverted my revision on Power of two. You are right that Mersenne primes are not that simple. I should not that not all one less than a power of two numbers are primes. My goal was to show that " one less than a power of two" is important thing. I didn't find any othe occurances in wiki so I linked it to Mersenne primes ( not properly as you showed). What do you think about creating new article about " one less than a power of two" similar to power of two ? Have a nice day --Adam majewski (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I replied at Talk:Power of two.—Anita5192 (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

need your input
You have removed an example I added of the use of MacGuffins in scripture. We may both agree that scripture is not fiction, while others may not! Much of it is, however, narrative in nature and uses the same rhetoric elements in the same manner. I think it will be of interest to your users that MacGuffins are used in this genre; they may never have considered such a wide scope of usage. Would the example be better placed elsewhere on this page? If so, please advise. Thank you. Jeanninegrimm (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I replied at Talk:MacGuffin. — Anita5192 (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

your revert on Conflict_(narrative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conflict_(narrative)&oldid=prev&diff=901700825 : Nature–culture divide not relevant/different meaning? Think twice. Man's (subjective) conflict with nature is of course a result of his identification with culture, his identity as a cultural being far removed from nature. I would suggest you ponder this and maybe think about a reversion reversion. -- Kku (talk) 07:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The article about the Nature-culture divide refers to tensions between culture and nature; the article about Conflict (narrative) refers to a conflict between a character and a force of nature, which is not the same thing. Furthermore, the Nature-culture divide article has multiple issues.  Specifically, it is vague.  That is why I removed the link.—Anita5192 (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Cheers, — Paleo Neonate  – 15:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you!  — Anita5192 (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Sphere
Hi, I noticed you undid my edits to the article Sphere, giving the reason that the punctuation was improper. As my edits contained a modest number of (generally minor) changes that covered content, formatting (linking), etc., please do not revert the entire package! Any punctuation edits you feel are required should be directly made to the edited version.

thank you DanTrent (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Just in case you did not already know, in such cases you can click on your old revision in the history then correct it from there (assuming there were no intervening edits, this should be easy and efficient). — Paleo  Neonate  – 03:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Curly quotation marks
Hi,

Thank you for your edit on Narration. The problem is, those are the only quotes the Wikipedia app lets me use. I have no idea how to fix that problem. Packer1028 (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to help you there. I edit Wikipedia from my laptop and I have no trouble with symbols.—Anita5192 (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: Chetsford (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.


 * Thank you! —Anita5192 (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Mnemonics in Trigonometry edit reversions
I saw that you reverted some additions I made to two trigonometry pages regarding remembering which quadrants were positive for which trig functions. I believe you reverted them because they were "unsourced." I am not sure how to source information that is common sense and public knowledge. Do I need to find an Internet source that confirms the information I added and source that web site? I do not understand what is needed for information that is added to an article to avoid being reverted. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Alcazar84 (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * There is plenty of information about sources and citations at Citing sources and the articles it links to. On the pages for Mnemonics in trigonometry and List of trigonometric identities, you should probably find a source comparable to those cited for the existing acronyms.  Happy editing!    —Anita5192 (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Force India ‎
Hi Anita5192. Sorry for reverting your edit to Force India; I was tricked by the ambiguous term "to date"; I have since reverted my revert of your revert :-) and clarified the text. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. I reverted the edit made by 50.204.66.34 (talk) because it was unexplained and that IP had made similar unexplained deletions—not because I thought the deleted phrase was appropriate.  That IP is now blocked for two years.—Anita5192 (talk) 06:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Cool. DH85868993 (talk) 06:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

replacing i.e. and e.g.
Hi-

Is it becoming standard on Wikipedia to replace i.e. and e.g. with their English equivalents? Otherwise, it seems odd to spend time altering each of these. I'm just curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenzilKem (talk • contribs) 21:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think the Wikipedia manual of style specifies this one way or the other. However, Latin abbreviations are primarily used in library reference works to pack a great deal of information into a small place.  In Wikipedia on the internet, space is cheap, so abbreviations are usually not necessary, especially for such short phrases.  Personally I think spelling out the English equivalent is more readable.—Anita5192 (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Geometric_series
Dear Anita,

Truth stranger than fiction. You removed an image which although another version was indeed deleted, in the end obtained OTRS-permission PD-Somalia, no Berne convention signed. Please click on the links with the image and see for yourself. Thank you, Hansmuller (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you then please restore this nice mathematical image?
 * I have mentioned this image on Talk:Geometric_series as you wished. So it is OK and you can restore? Life is short in the end. Hansmuller (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I have replied on Talk:Geometric series. Please continue the discussion there.—Anita5192 (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages
Please note that disambiguation pages like Old Man River have guidelines that are different from articles. From the Disambiguation dos and don'ts, don't include every article containing the title.

Old Man River strikes me as an unambiguous partial title match for 'Old Man', so I moved it to the See also section and made it into a disambiguation page link (Old Man River)

Thank you. Leschnei (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Fine with me.—Anita5192 (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Tests of general relativity
Hi. Can I ask why you reverted my edit? I can’t see how providing the correct title of the newspaper ‘broke grammar’ There is no paper called London Times. Thanks. Point of Presence talk  18:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not familiar with the paper, but I know there is no paper called The The Times.—Anita5192 (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * apologies! I see it now. Corrected Point of Presence  talk  18:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Young adult fiction
Happy New Year. (February's Eve, Lunar New Year, etc) That is quite a detailed revision history generated by your recent work, Talk:Young adult fiction: Revision history. I would have opened the entire page, signed here and improved sectioning there, and submitted with summary "Sign several unsigned comments; re-layout with new section "Mid-Century". Thanks for your attention to this page. --P64 (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

why did you revert the Dickson reference
Hi there,

The Dickson references are good. I checked them myself. Dickson's "history of the theory of numbers" is a bible in American mathematics for number theory up to 1921. the math involved is at those places in the text and there are original references in the dickson work. A Dickson reference from History Of the Theory of Numbers is not spam. Endo999 (talk) 05:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The sources are not cited and it is obvious that you are simply spamming them into several articles. These are not improvements to the articles.  See WP:REFSPAM—Anita5192 (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Many of the insertions you made were also in the wrong place.—Anita5192 (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * They are not in the wrong place. I checked them myself.  Many people have the three volume reference work on their bookshelves.  They would genuinely like to know where the Dickson reference is so they can look it up.  A Dickson reference to History Of the Theory of numbers is an improvement to the number theory article since it is a major work in the English language on number theory up to 1921.  It is a bible for number theory, so the reference is of interest to the mathematician.  Do you have the three volume reference. I suggest if you are to continue to decide what goes into number theory articles that you pick it up.  I picked up mine for 50 dollars at a second hand bookshop.  Endo999 (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Take a look at this edit. Specifically, look at where you placed the new text and then look at how it displays. It should be placed after the  template and it should be in alphabetical order, as the other sources in the section are.  This is what I mean by inserting them in the wrong place.  Please be more careful.—Anita5192 (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Reverted edition in "Complex Number"
Hi, I saw you reverted my small edition in Complex Number's History section. In my modest opinion, you made a mistake. Let me explain my point:

Firstly the text says: "...algebraic solutions for the roots of cubic and quartic polynomials were discovered by Italian mathematicians..."

Sencondly: "It was soon realized that these formulas, even if one was only interested in real solutions, sometimes required the manipulation of square roots of negative numbers." And here is where the template When? appears

Finally: "As an example, Tartaglia's formula for a cubic equation of the form..."

This final example clarifies de second phrase and refers to a Tartaglia's work, one of the Italian mathematicians involved in this research. Obviously the answer to when?, implicit in the text, is 'soon', i.e., at the time when these mathematicians were working, because they realised of that fact. Any other person couldn't realise because these mathematicians were the only people that knew this new work. You don't need any additional reference to clear this. I changed the article 'it' by 'they' to clarify this point.

Probably I made grammar mistakes because English is not my mother tongue, but I hope you understood my point.

More than never, take care! --Xosé Antonio (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Concerning Eigenvalue Decomposition Matrix Edit
I forgot to edit why, I'm sorry. And since I study math I forgot why. Next time I'll be more concise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac3959680 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Incircle and excircles of a triangle edits
Hi, thanks for your edits of Incircle and excircles of a triangle. I moved the citations you queried in your partial revert from the end of the last bullet list point to the colon at the top of the list to clarify that they covered all the bullet points rather than just the last one. Otherwise, their current placement leaves what they cover ambiguous. Cheers. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay. I understand now.  I have put it back.  Thank you for all the work you are doing in the article!  —Anita5192 (talk) 05:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Diamond boy?
Hey. I see you cleared off a post on my talk page from "diamond boy" - thank you! But what was all that about? Why was he posting on my page and how did you spot it? (I assume you don't check everyone's talk pages!) ;-) Point of Presence  talk  09:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Greetings! I spotted it because the same IP person posted some nonsense on my talk page.  Whenever I catch someone committing vandalism, I look at their user contributions to see what else they have done and I often revert their other vandalism and post a warning message on their talk page.  Cheers!—Anita5192 (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
? — Anita5192 (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Heyday to you under investigation for handing out barnstars indiscriminately, including also to self. David notMD (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation.—Anita5192 (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Red links to nonexistent articles
Hello! I noticed that you reverted my edit to Romance Writers of America because I had created a red link to a nonexistent article. I've restored my vesion, as this edit was intentional; please see WP:REDLINK for why the creation of appropriately chosen red links is a good idea, and actually helps Wikipedia grow in both scale and depth. -- The Anome (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

double angle formulae. What do these have to do with mnemonics?
Referring to:

Mnemonics "a device such as a pattern of letters, ideas, or associations that assists in remembering something."

The above shows that the double angle formulas for sin and cos following the same pattern, which can assist people in remembering their formulas. Do you agree? Mgkrupa (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No, I do not agree. I reverted your edit to List of trigonometric identities because the similarity between the two identities is difficult to see, I don't see how this would make the identities easier to remember, and the section as inserted does not make any of this clear.—Anita5192 (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Starting with any one of these line, you replace all blue instances of sin (resp. cos) with cos (resp. sin) to go from one identity to the other? Is that not apparent? Mgkrupa (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * There is a lot more in these identities to remember than just the blue text.—Anita5192 (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * When did I say that all that there is to remember is the blue text? Mgkrupa (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * So are we done discussing? Mgkrupa (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I am.—Anita5192 (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I've added it back in with a much more detailed explanation since I now see how the mnemonic may not be readily apparent. I don't want an edit war so I'd like to know what you think about the current version. If you still don't think that it should be included then could you please give some advice about how it could be changed to become acceptable for inclusion or if this is not possible, then could you please tell me what you think the fundamental problem with it is? Best wishes. Mgkrupa (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to it: Mnemonics in trigonometry Mgkrupa (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Pictures of low quality
Hi, since June user Garand377AB is adding a lot of black and white pictures of low quality, for example Pentagonal pyramid. I think they should be removed, but I am not sure. Please could You check ? Thanks !--Ag2gaeh (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree. I just looked at several images inserted by Garand377AB (talk | contribs) into various geometry articles which already have color images of more superior quality.  I recommend removing the black and white images.  You probably should also put a friendly note on his or her talk page.—Anita5192 (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am Garand377AB. I have not uploaded black and white photos, they are 3D figures (for example Pentagonal pyramid) that allow users to interact with them. If you think they are irrelevant, delete them, although as a mathematician I think they are a good contribution.Garand377AB (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see now. I think these are good contributions, but how to use them is not clear from the articles (for example, Pentagonal pyramid).  I had to play around with the 3D figure to learn how to revolve it and see it from different angles.  You should insert some text to explain what can be done with the images (in all such articles) and how to do it.—Anita5192 (talk) 07:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. Meanwhile I noticed the hidden possibility for interaction, too. --Ag2gaeh (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Permutations
The problem is than the premise is false. n-tuples are not permutations without repetitions. n-tuples are only n elements ordered lists. Not all the possible different ways of arranging n elements of a given set. I am going to use a correct simpler wording for you. Permutations Orendona (talk) 10:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The appropriate place to discuss this is on the Permutation talk page, so other editors who watch the page can see what you write and reply there.—Anita5192 (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary revert of unnecessary edit
Why did you revert the IP-editor's change to Hyperbolic functions?

You're right the edit Special:Diff/987147529 by IP editor was 'Unnecessary' – it didn't improve the article's contents. However, even if not necessary, I think it was useful – it made the linking simpler, so the overall structure of articles got improved a tiny bit.

OTOH your revert Special:Diff/987148009 was even more unnecessary, IMHO – it didn't improve the article, either, but it added unnecessary copy of the page in the history and it made indirect reference to the other article instead of existing direct one. --CiaPan (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oops! My mistake.  I am accustomed to seeing Wikipedia articles in singular form and didn't look at the target article, so I thought "inverse hyperbolic function" was more direct than "inverse hyperbolic functions".  Sorry about that!—Anita5192 (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. But some small families of functions (trigonometric, hyperbolic and their inverses, or Weierstrass functions) are described collectively, making an exception from the rule. Funny thing, the article which you modified is among those in plural, too. Happy editing! --CiaPan (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Undo on Group (math) page
Regarding your undo of an addition done to the Group (maths) page. I must recall you the wikipedia rule "do not delete, improve":

''Consider carefully before reverting, as it rejects the contributions of another editor. Consider what you object to, and what the editor was attempting. Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reverting it? Can you revert only part of the edit, or do you need to revert the whole thing?''

In fact, your comment to the undo has been "redundant and sloppy grammar": it is obvious bad English is not a reason to undo, just a reason to improve.

About "redundant", it is something opinion based. Another wikipedia rule: the balance should be tilted towards keeping it. It is best to have a phrase that some users do not need or miss a phrase that some user needs ?

In concrete, to be considered "redundant" you should explain where page has a content equivalent to the one suppressed.


 * Your edits have been reverted, in part, because they were redundant. They added little more than what was stated immediately before.  If you think the text you added is important, then please continue this discussion on the talk page for Group (mathematics).—Anita5192 (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I must repeat the question "where page has a content equivalent to the one suppressed?". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.183.73 (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Undo of 18:32, 24 November 2020 in article Bisection
Dear Anita 5192, given your contributions to this article, I obviously bow.

But "Not helpful" still seems harsh to me. This form is elegant, concise, valid in any case (even if y_1 = y_2) and it shows the role of p_1 and p_2 ...

Never mind...

Good regards,

MuPiKa (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Undo of Energy on 05:31, 7 December 2020
Thanks for noticing. I meant to change the word "work" to "energy" but didn't. You are much more experience and expert than me, so I will defer to your opinion on whether noting that energy is a scalar is worth the space in the introduction. editeur24 (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Feedback
Hi, thanks for your feedback, I have read it and will take it into account for future contributions. Thanks! --Fractally (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You undid my edit
Hello, there. I noticed you undid my edit on mathematics, saying the term "maths" is incorrect. Can you explain this, please? I never hear anyone use the long term, and maths redirects to "mathematics". GOLDIEM J (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oops! I guess it does.  Sorry.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation
My advisor was an Aussie and he used "maths" in conversation. Pronounced /mæθs/; rhymes with "baths". Though it probably doesn't rhyme in RP because they would pronounce "baths" as /bɒθs/ or something, I think. --Trovatore (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the information. I have always lived in the United States, and so I have never heard anyone use the term "maths," and I was not aware that it was common in the United Kingdom. I also thought anyone using it would use a hard "th" as in "math," instead of a soft "th" as in "baths," which, I think, would be difficult to pronounce.—Anita5192 (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * By "hard" th you mean voiced? I think it's unvoiced in both the s and non-s forms.  I don't see why it's any harder to pronounce than "baths", which is a slightly awkward word, but the only plural that "bath" has.
 * Anglophones often think that consonant clusters that are rare or don't occur in English are "hard to pronounce", but a lot of times they're just not used to them. I had a Greek friend in grad school named Xenia, pronounced /ksɛnjə/, just like it's spelled.  People were always wanting to put a vowel between the /k/ and the /s/, but it's really not necessary.  The /ks/ cluster doesn't appear word-initially in English, but it's not actually "hard to say", just unfamiliar. --Trovatore (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, maybe you're using "hard" to mean "unvoiced"? For clarity, the th in "this" is voiced; the one in "think" is unvoiced".
 * Now that I think about it, maybe "baths" is pronounced with a voiced th, /bæðz/? It's a word I use rarely enough that I'm not quite sure.  In any case, I'm pretty sure "maths" is unvoiced, /mæθs/. --Trovatore (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. That is what I meant.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Whilst some words hiving the "a" vowel (like "bath") vary in pronounciation across the UK, the word "maths" (a contraction of "mathematics") always has a short "a" as in "mat", and a soft "th" as in "moth". -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki problem display negative power
My change was not a test but an attempt to get an expert involved. A table that should show X power -1 omits the minus sign: the minus does not show before  I edited. With my edit two minus signs show, which is better than zero minus signs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8001:5DF0:D1C5:6C61:411D:1571 (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you trying to fix the minus sign at Abelian group, but two minus signs are not better than none. Wikipedia has a software bug. Editors have tried several times to kludge it to no avail. This has been reported multiple times now on WP:VPT. We'll just have to wait until the administrators fix it properly. In the meantime, try increasing the magnification of your browser.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It is also a recommended practice on Wikipedia to leave an edit summary to indicate your intentions.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Requesting some topic expansion help
Greetings,

Requesting you to visit lately initiated Draft:Irrational beliefs, If you find topic interested in, please do support topic expansion. Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

what can we say about an eigenspectrum of a square matrix with strictly positive diagonal values
hello anita,

dr eppstein said my inquiry was not his forte, so i thought maybe i'd ask you.

if i have such a matrix whose diagonal values are strictly positive, then can i say anything about the resulting eigenvalues also being strictly positive?

i don't think this is as-easy as i'd want it to be.

i am thinking the optimal decomposition (numerically precise) may yield eigenvectors whose eigenvalues are negative, and that imposing a strictly-positive constraint on the eigenvalues would yield a suboptimal solution?

if you don't know, who might? wanna ask around? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.159.44 (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

sorry for the ping, not sure if you saw this. i would love to have an answer :P


 * I don't know the answer to your question. This one is beyond me. Good luck!—Anita5192 (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * no problem. it seems so "easy" but then you think about it and wonder if we can really give any guarantees on the bounds of one, knowing the bounds of the other! 198.53.159.44 (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If you can find a dependable source for this, you should consider adding this to the appropriate article—perhaps at spectrum of a matrix.—Anita5192 (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Revert at Chinese remainder theorem
Hi, Anita5192. Why did you revert my edit at Chinese Remainder Theorem? To be clear, I did not mean to suggest in my edit summary that there exists a unique integer x satisfying the congruences. Although I realize it was unclear, "a single integer" was meant to refer to the fact that x is a singular integer, so I'm not sure if it's grammatical to write "there exist integers x". At any rate, to say "there exists an integer x" does not preclude there being more than one, so no extra meaning is conveyed by "there exist integers x". Lester Mobley (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Now that you mention it, both versions have problems. I thought of other variations, but they were not completely correct, either, so I reworded the sentence as in one of my textbooks.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * What's the problem with "there exists an integer"? Lester Mobley (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * That implies there is only one solution.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It certainly does not. "There exists" is a quantifier which does not mean the same thing as "there exists a unique". Lester Mobley (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I think your rewording is fine. Just clarifying that "there exists an integer" is also fine. Lester Mobley (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Revert in Polynomial
Hi Anita, You reverted my edit quoting that the notation though incorrect, was "traditional". You had asked for discussing on the talk page before reverting your revert. I have done so (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polynomial#Summation_Notation_in_Definition_Section). But shouldn't you have started the discussion on the talk page about it when you understood that my edit was legitimate and had mathematical merit. --Niteshb in (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't have much more to say than what I wrote in my edit summary. I'm waiting for some of the other mathematicians to reply.—Anita5192 (talk) 05:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

greatest common divisor (why you´ve removed my part)
Hello,

why have you deleted my small part in gcd? In other math articles there are also "youtube" sources.

So please go and delete them also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scityscit (talk • contribs) 08:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * See below.—Anita5192 (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Your revert on generalized inverses
It seems you reverted my edits on generalized inverses; see [diff here]. Reason: "This technical jargon did not make the article easier to understand.". Classifying generalized inverses by the subsets of Penrose properties they satisfy has a rich research-history behind them. See the book [Generalized Inverses: Theory and Applications] and observe the whole book is organized based on these properties. Is there something specific you don't agree with? Kaba3 (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * My reversion had nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing. I reverted your edits for two reasons: 1. None of your edits were explained with an edit summary, which editors should always provide. 2. The set-theoretical notation (An $$I$$-inverse of $$A$$, where $$I \subset \{1, 2, 3, 4\}$$ . . .) is too technical for non-mathematicians. The content in articles in Wikipedia should be written as far as possible for the widest possible general audience. So, I reverted to a previous version of those sections, because it was simpler and easier to understand by readers not already familiar with the more advanced notation and concepts.—Anita5192 (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * On edit summaries: "Editors should not revert an otherwise good edit because of a missing or confusing edit summary". On notation: Writing about {1,2}-inverses is better than repeatedly writing about "inverses which satisfy properties (1) and (2)". I think it is quite clear. It is also the notation used in the literature. About general audiences: clearly mathematics cannot be written to the general audience. The fact is that mathematics builds layer by layer on itself, and to understand the current layer, you need to understand the previous layers. How do you suggest the article Vector bundle should be written to the general audience? I added back a dedicated section on I-inverses. Note that the I-inverses are mentioned in the generalized inverses of matrices; removing then breaks also that section. Kaba3 (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I am okay with the way you have the article now. I was mostly concerned about the sections, Motivation, and Types. I think they need to be simple introductions. Thank you for leaving those two sections as they are.—Anita5192 (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

why did you removed my editing on the "greatest common divisor" article?
I left an editing in the section "other methods" and I gave an source. Other mathematical articles do also have youtube video as sources. Why do they still exist?

Best regards Scityscit (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Although YouTube is acceptable in some cases, it is not a dependable source of mathematical proof. See WP:YOUTUBE. Also, if other mathematical articles cite YouTube, that does not validate its use there, not does it justify its use elsewhere.  See WP:OSE.—Anita5192 (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * (A side comment from a Talk page stalker.) One should always remember that YouTube is NOT 'a source'. That site is a collection of thousands 'channels', each of which has its own author(s), its own topical profile, and its own level of reliability, credibility and quality. So calling the name of YouTube as a 'source' has more or less the same sense as saying something is sourced 'in a press' or 'in the Internet' – every time one needs to indicate the specific journal, magazine or newspaper, the specific website or the specific channel and reference some estimation of that specific source's reliability. --CiaPan (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hyperbola
Thank you for reviewing and correcting Hyperbola. I think the mistake you noticed, is that a hyperbola has two branches, so it is not a catenary. I edited the article to reflect that difference. Please check what I did.

Wikipedia is accurate because of editors like you, who notice and fix errors. Comfr (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021
Your edit to Screenwriting has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --182.1.165.240 (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

?—Anita5192 (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Refer to Long-term abuse/Indonesian "stub"-related vandalism. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 19:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit on page Bijection
Good day,

I am quite new to editing wikipedia, so I wanted to make sure why my edit on the page Bijection was reverted. This is in order to make better contributions in the future, so these questions are not only with regards to this edit: I will gladly except that it is unnecessary/not suitable.

-Only one source: Do I need more sources that state exactly the information that I am adding? (In this case that biunivocal => one-to-one correspondence) Or do we need more instances of usage?

-Uncommon usage: This is true, it was difficult to find this usage, which was part of the reason I added it. Does this make it unsuitable for the page or could it perhaps be included somewhere lower down (for example: "uncommonly referred to as biunivocal")

-OR I am fairly sure I understand this. In this context, what would the source need to say in order for it to not be considered OR?

Kind regards, KoosTheReader (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Since your source is the only one I could find in a browser search, the synonym seems obscure at best. It might be appropriate to insert it somewhere farther down in the article, with a section title like, "Alternative nomenclature".—Anita5192 (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks.KoosTheReader (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Revert in Levi-Civita symbol/Cross product (two vectors)
Hello

You revert my contribution and I should like to understand why.

My change only concerns the first sentence of this paragraph. So it is very surprising that it can be redundant. Anyway, this sentence contains two contradictory parts and needs to be changed.


 * 1) the first part is: “If $(2θ)$ and $2$ are vectors in $θ cos θ$”
 * 2) the second part is: “represented in some right-handed coordinate system using an orthonormal basis”

We have two options I choose the second option, and you disagree. Do you agree with the first option? May you explain why you do want to stay in $$\mathbb{R^3}$$? And please, what is redundant with what?
 * keep the first part ($$\mathbb{R^3}$$). In a coordinate space such as $$\mathbb{R^n}$$, the vectors are not represented by n-uples but are n-uples. In addition, usually, the orientation of the space is the canonical orientation and the basis $$(e_1,\cdots, e_n)$$ is the canonical basis (standard basis). That may be recalled but in any case, the second part must be removed.
 * keep the second part. This requires to be placed in a general vector space and no longer in $$\mathbb{R^3}$$. In addition, specifying a little the notations can’t be a bad thing.

Regards--KharanteDeux (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I reverted your edit because:


 * 1) Your edit of Cross product (two vectors) changed very little, since $$(\mathbf{e_1}, \mathbf{e_2}, \mathbf{e_3})$$ implies $π$.
 * 2) You duplicated three existing sections:  Vector cross product, Triple scalar product (three vectors), and Curl (one vector field).
 * 3) Your edit was unexplained. That is, you left no edit summary.
 * — Anita5192 (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * About your three points: 2) I apologize! I made a bad manipulation. I just wanted to edit "Cross product (two vectors)" and I haven't seen all these duplications. 3) Sorry. As you said, it’s was a little change and I thought it’s was not necessary. 1) As I said above, the sentence must be modified. I’ll keep my option, being careful not to repeat my error. Thanks for your involvement. --KharanteDeux (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Reverted edit because not helpful
The initial part of the edit i made in the section of perihelion precession of mercury in Tests Of General Relativity corrects an inaccurate physics statement of the previous version, saying that the object trace out an ellipse with the centre of mass at the foci. This is not true in Newtonian mechanics, and becomes only approximately true if one of the body is much heavier. Please consider changing this statement to the one i edited.--Ruhenheim (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Please continue this discussion on the article's talk page.—Anita5192 (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Bad Toys 3D
Hello Anita!

Do you remember this game. download it here.

https://archive.org/download/BadToys3D_1020/bt3d.zip

There is also a prototype...

https://archive.org/download/BadToys_1020/badtoys.zip

Happy playing and don't forget to make an article on it.

Nitheesh Yevan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitheesh Yevan (talk • contribs) 14:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Quintic equation
In your recent edits of Quintic equation, you have removed the sentence. It seems to be a mistake, as the remaining reference does not correspond to the text that precedes. Please, fix it, since I cannot do it myself per WP:COI. Also, because of the elapsed time between the two references of this paragraph, it seems worth to mention the date of my paper in the text. Thanks. D.Lazard (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the deletion! I have reinserted what was missing. If this is not completely satisfactory, please let me know and I will fix it as you think best.—Anita5192 (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit request
Hello Anita5192, regarding User:Anita5192/common.js, first thanx for using my version of log-out. I need one favor, on your common.js page the very last line

 ,

could you please remove that complete line, it's putting your page into that category which is not correct. Thank you very much, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Done.—Anita5192 (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)