User talk:Bruguiea

Welcome
To make a redirect page see: Redirect or simply edit the latent root page and see how I did it!

Here are a few links you might find helpful:


 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nice with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on User talk:UnlimitedAccess.

Oh by the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~). - UnlimitedAccess 20:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Question on Talk:The Economist
I have replied to your question on the above page, in case you are still interested. --Oldak Quill 20:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Merging References into External Links
I had reservations about your recent edit to the Car battery article. Citing sources states:


 * Further reading/external links


 * An ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed at the end of an article after the References section, and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article.

I have tried to stick to this myself for as long as I have been aware of the distinction. I did indeed rely on the links I put in the References section as sources. I wanted to request your take on this before reversing your edit, in case there is something I have not considered. -thanks, -Onceler 19:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't know about this policy. Actually, I used the articles as a reference too, but they have more information over there. Do whatever you feel is appropriate.

Tony 02:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case, you might want to change some of your ==External Links== to ==References== as well. I leave that to your best judgement. -Onceler 02:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Dred Scott's death
You have removed a claim Dred Scott died of consumption, alleging it referred to AIDS. Why?

--

Leandro GFC Dutra 15:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 

Tony 15:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Descry
Thanks for experimenting with the page User:Descry on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. JHMM13 (T | C)  23:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

80 members of parliament
Hi. Someone is trying to delete the article you created on "les 80". Could you please give your opinion here. Merci beaucoup. -- JJay 15:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

False discovery rate
Hi Tony. Regarding your message on my user page, I'm afraid that it's a bit beyond my expertise, though I can make some general comments that might be helpful. I also find myself a bit too busy with work at present to do much wikification. I think the opening paragraph is good, but there should be more exposition in the sections that follow, explaining the context in more detail. There also seems to be some jargon about activation in the table there. Is that from signal processing? Finally, since the formula (\forall k \leq i) etc. is quite simple, I wondered if there might be some simple derivation or explanation for it. Cheers, Ben Cairns 09:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC).

TeX
Hello. Note that in TeX, you don't need to write \operatorname{min}; you can just write \min. This not only prevents italicization, but also affects spacing and the position of subscripts. Thus if you type \min_i x_i, you get this:


 * $$\min_i x_i\,$$

whereas with \operatorname{min}_i x_i, you get this:


 * $$\operatorname{min}_i x_i\,$$

Notice both the smaller space between "min" and "xi in the second version, and also the difference between the positions of the subscript i in the two versions. Michael Hardy 02:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Forshaw
As a heads up, I deleted your link to his number in the AfD. It's just not safe, I know you meant no harm and were just making a point. Happy editing! T e  K  E  02:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Your nominations
Could you consider giving more reason then "nn" in your nominations. It takes time to create articles, and people are owed an explanation, as to why they should be deleted. There may be a perfectly valid reason why you think something is "non notable", but it should be stated. I feel this is an issue of showing respect for the time of others. --Rob 10:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Another way to show respect for the time of others would be not to nominate high schools. It is around a year since an article about a genuine high school was deleted, but in that time there have been hundreds of failed nominations, which between them have wasted a great deal of time. Nominating high schools serves no purpose except making a point and it creates ill feeling in the community, so please don't do it again. CalJW 10:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I know that the threshold for wikipedia is at high school and we delete anything below. This nomination is about something that is a mix of middle school, junior high and high and, in this case of a mix, I honestly thought it should be deleted. Sorry for not putting that in the nomination. Tony 15:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's not the threshold anymore. What you say was partly true in 2004.  Please review Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive and Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive/2005.  The standard for a year is to keep virtually all elementaries and middle schools.  Most deleetions have been for copyright violations, attack content, or verifiability issues.  But not "notability".  Netivot Hatorah Day School and York Hill Elementary School were the last verifiable real elementary schools deleted on Wikipedida, back in August 2005 (they were the exception at that time).  Things like preschools and unaccredited schools continue to be deleted of course.  But not verifiable real elementaries and middle schools.   -Rob 17:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

RE-The Vichy 80
Hi,
 * Original message :

I am a bit puzzled by your edit on The Vichy 80 article. Why did you remove the wiki to fr:Loi constitutionnelle du 10 juillet 1940? Although it's not exactly the same subject, it's fairly close. Actual, there was some Talk:The Vichy 80 to split the English article if enough material gets included, but in the meantime, isn't better to keep the cross wiki? Tony 14:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Réponse/Answer :

I can anderstand you idee. But i prefere that links are good. Maybe we could advise the reader that it isn't the same subject. However i don't speack english very well, so you can do as you want. --Pseudomoi 19:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

advertisement
"advertisement on wikipedia.....Why not make it optional, so that each user decides if he/she wants to see the advertisement"

It seems like it would be very easy to provide users with this choice in the Wikipedia user preferences, a check box that would say "support Wikipedia by turning on ads." An advertisement system such as that used at this website could be activated. --JWSchmidt 14:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Shadowrun
Actually, there is an article called Shadowrun (Xbox 360) that has been in existance for some time. I saw your merge tag and thought I would tell you. Thunderbrand 03:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't play videogames so thank you for correcting my mistakes. Tony 03:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Rosario Isasi
I'd wait a while. There needs to be enough time between the last AfD and the next one so that people don't complain that it was re-listed too quickly. Plus I'm still holding out hope that maybe somebody will produce a decent source that vouches for her notability although it looks like the two main supporters have given up at this point. — GT 20:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Your sandbox
Please move it to a subpage. It is actually a regestered user. The Republican 02:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh? Tony 02:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Eagles
You recently added a {verify} tag at the top of this article. Much of the content in the article is factual (band members, discography, etc), so I suspect you are questioning content in specific sections and/or paragraphs. It would be helpful to those of us who monitor that article if you could move the {verify} tag to the section you feel needs work, and/or add some specific comments to the article's talk page. -- Engineer Bob 17:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the confusion. I posted the thing here. Tony 01:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available
 After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

About ESIEE
Bonjour Tony. J'ai essayé de modifier l'article sur l'ESIEE pour y faire figurer l'apprentissage qui débute en septembre : un formation d'ingénieurs réseaux en alternance. Mon niveau d'anglais étant ce qu'il est, si vous trouvez une meilleure traduction n'hésitez pas à l'y mettre à la place. En tant qu'élève de l'ESIEE, je peux vous certifier la validité de l'info. De plus elle est aussi disponible sur www.esiee.fr Boris SCHAPIRA (GroquiK-GK)

regarding your edits to the WP:AFD
please try and avoid accidental blankings of large pages--205.188.116.9 20:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's very messy and time consuming to cleanup, especially when other people don't notice it and go on adding things to the page, making a simple revert impossible--205.188.116.9 21:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there was an edit conflict and things got messed up. Tony 15:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's fixed, I think, though someone may want to check over my work. BigDT 21:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hotelling T square distribution
I think you may have misread the first sentence of Hotelling's T-square distribution. It only says that the T-square distribution is used in multivariate hypothesis testing. Nowhere does it say that the distribution itself is multivariate. In fact, you just need to look at the definition of the $$T^2$$ test statistic to see that it is a scalar (essentially, a weighted inner product of two vectors). Also see the corresponding entry on MathWorld. Cheers, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right. Sorry about the inconvenience. Tony 01:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Band plurals
I just saw your message at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style, but as that was a few weeks ago, I'm replying here in case you aren't watching that page any more. American_and_British_English_differences probably explains this better than I can, but British English uses are a band and American English uses is a band. Bands named the Somethings such as the Eagles, complicate matters. I always thought that the plural is used in these situations in Am Eng, but as a Br Eng speaker I may be wrong. Possibly both are acceptable. The general rule of thumb is to use is a band for American bands, are a band for British bands, and whichever was used first for bands from non-English speaking countries. Oldelpaso 10:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Online Tutoring
Thanks for removing the online tutoring providers link (several times) on this page. I started this page and took on the lofty task of trying to provide a useful summary. Later experience on Wikipedia informs me that this kind of link does not belong on this page. I'm happy to note that the page hasnt changed much content-wise besides this.

Your request for arbitration
As a Clerk of the Arbitration Committee, I noticed that in your request for arbitration concerning Online Tutoring, you did not indicated that you had notified the other parties of your request. You are required to provide a notification to each of the other parties and provide a link to it in the request. Please do this as soon as possible.

The arbitrators who have commented so far have suggested that this matter is not suitable for arbitration because earlier steps in dispute resolution have not been explored. You may want to consider withdrawing your arbitration request and trying to address the issue you are concerned about through other means. Newyorkbrad 13:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Because 4 arbitrators have rejected your case, I have speedily removed the case from request for arbitration page. You should try to use request for comments, third opinion, and/or request for mediation first. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 07:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I have voted to decline, and your case seems unlikely to be accepted, I have restored your request for now, as I believe its removal was a bit premature. Regards Paul August &#9742; 16:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

sandbox
We use the shorthand notation to denote the joint probability of $$(X, T(X))$$ by $$f_\theta(x,t)$$. Since $$T$$ is a function of $$X$$, we have $$f_\theta(x,t) = f_\theta(x)$$ and thus:


 * $$f_\theta(x) = f_\theta(x,t) = f_{\theta | t}(x) f_\theta(t) $$

with the last equality being true by the definition of conditional probability distributions. Thus $$f_\theta(x)=a(x) b_\theta(t)$$ with $$a(x) = f_{\theta | t}(x)$$ and $$b(x) = f_\theta(t)$$.

Reciprocally, if $$f_\theta(x)=a(x) b_\theta(t)$$, we have



\begin{align} f_\theta(t) & = \sum _{x : T(x) = t} f_\theta(x, t) \\ & = \sum _{x : T(x) = t} f_\theta(x) \\ & = \sum _{x : T(x) = t} a(x) b_\theta(t) \\ & = \left( \sum _{x : T(x) = t} a(x) \right) b_\theta(t) \end{align}$$

With the first equality by the definition of pdf for multiple variables, the second by the remark above, the third by hypothesis, and the fourth because the summation is not over $$t$$.

Thus, the conditional probability distribution is:

\begin{align} f_{\theta|t}(x) & = \frac{f_\theta(x, t)}{f_\theta(t)} \\ & = \frac{f_\theta(x)}{f_\theta(t)} \\ & = \frac{a(x) b_\theta(t)}{\left( \sum _{x : T(x) = t} a(x) \right) b_\theta(t)} \\ & = \frac{a(x)}{\sum _{x : T(x) = t} a(x)} \end{align}$$

With the first equality by definition of conditional probability density, the second by the remark above, the third by the equality proven above, and the fourth by simplification. This expression does not depend of $$\theta$$ and thus $$T$$ is a sufficient statistics.

Theophile Bruguier
It's really not easy to judge at present - clearly you need time to get together more material. But what there is so far looks promising, and potentially quite a lot more interesting than the average city founder who did nothing except acquire land and leave children. We'll just have to see what it looks like when you've had a chance to research a bit further. HeartofaDog (talk • contribs) 00:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC) sorry, saved too soon) If you add in the extra information from the links you give, that should be enough to warrant taking the tag off again.HeartofaDog (talk • contribs) 00:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Your Edit Request
Hi I took an "unprofessional" look at your article on False Discovery Rate. I made some changes to the first paragraph. Looked good to me other then that. {*TEE DUB*} (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Paris Chamber of Commerce logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Paris Chamber of Commerce logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor Typo
Hi there. Just saw your svg image for 'impossible trinity', there's a minor typo in the bottom right corner (the word 'monetary' lacks the 'r'). Thank you for making the image, and all the other work you've done throughout this resource. Tristanreid (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

-- This typo is still present--221.191.250.171 (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Little context in Berg v. Obama
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Berg v. Obama, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Berg v. Obama is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Berg v. Obama, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Online Tutoring Redirected to Virtual Education
Thanks for your efforts on the original page Bruguiea. I noticed Jbmurray, Mark Quigley and Bazzargh have successfully killed this page and redirected it. Those guys really do good stuff but as I are fallible sometimes as in this case, in my opinion. Only in a world in which professionals in one area try to increase the breadth of their contributions through catch-all aggregation would online tutoring be subsumed under virtual education. Is tutoring and education the same thing? Tutoring is an activity that implies action by some professional human or agent while education exists in a broader context that might not even include tutoring for a successful attainment of its purpose. Its ok to request improvement to the Online Tutoring page and if I had the time (and might in future) I would improve it. But directing users to Virtual Education when they request information or description of Online Tutoring weakens Wikipedia and does not serve seekers well. It also does not help them find the content well as it does not rank on good engines since it is not the same thing.

The problem I had with the Online Tutoring page (which for full disclosure I created) was attempts to turn it into a web directory. Otherwise, it provides (or should) the information seekers need on online tutoring and that specifically. And more professional work needs to be done also (nothing on research on effectiveness of virtual education, new work on speech recognition in browsers and disability etc) on that Virtual Education page rather than going around copying or aggregating related but different contents from other pages and minimizing Wikipedia. Just my opinion but I still love what you guys do seeing I cant even commit a tenth the time. --keal (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dominique Cottrez
A tag has been placed on Dominique Cottrez requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Gobbleswoggler (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC) JohnCD (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just being suspected of murder does not make someone notable enough for an encyclopedia article - see WP:NOT; see also WP:Biographies of living persons. You could try Wikinews - I don't know what their BLP policy is. JohnCD (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I declined this CSD; whether we like it or not, this isn't a CSD candidate. (Perhaps, as John says, an AfD is in order.) Meanwhile, I had to comment on your talk page defense of the article; original and amusing. Thanks for the chuckle. Frank  |  talk  20:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Cottrez_2.png
Thank you for uploading File:Cottrez_2.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Cottrez_3.png
Thank you for uploading File:Cottrez_3.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Cottrez_4.png
Thank you for uploading File:Cottrez_4.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Cottrez.png
Thank you for uploading File:Cottrez.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Dominique Cottrez
I have nominated Dominique Cottrez, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Dominique Cottrez. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JohnCD (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ESIEE building.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:ESIEE building.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Helen Fisher
I noticed some of your comments on that page and think they were quite relevant. The entire article reads like a sales pitch for her books. Evolotutionary sociobiology is quite controversial in scientific circles and yet there is no mention of any problems in the entire article. I don't have on hand the resources to delve deeper into this. But you'd be on the right path if you did... cheers--Tallard (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Image added at QR decomposition
Hi Bruguiea, I have a few comments on the image you just added: Also, there are some grammatical issues in the caption; I suggest you replace "... a vector of same length by collinear to e1 ..." with "... a vector of same length which is collinear to e1 ..." and replace "Instead the Householder reflection do a symmetry along the dashed line" with "Instead, the Householder reflection reflects through the dotted line (chosen to bisect the angle between x and e1)." Also, it's not clear to me what the significance of the last sentence of the caption is. Thanks for adding the image! (And sorry for nit-picking.) --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Something seems wrong with the arrows at the topmost vertex
 * Is it possible to make the font agree with, e.g., the LaTeX math font? (This is just personal taste.)
 * Why is there so much empty space at the top of the image?
 * The fact that the dotted line is dotted is not visible in the article; maybe make it dashed instead?


 * Hi Tony, thanks for your changes -- it looks very nice now! (I would have tried to help, but I don't know the first thing about either uploading files to Wikipedia or using Inkscape.)  --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

VATSTATS
Hi. VATSATS is a website for virtual airlines/flight simulator pilots - they are not real. It is connected to Virtual Air Traffic Simulation Network. Not a reliable source for articles. Secretlady (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I indeed made a mistake. Thanks for fixing it. Tony (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ESIEE Paris logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:ESIEE Paris logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"Krull valuation" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Krull valuation and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 5 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)