User talk:Deltahedron/Archive 1

Another wiki
Being retired here, you could be welcome there. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go
Hi Deltahedron,

I'm sorry to see that you are retiring. I think I understand your frustration, I would not have wanted to be the target of such undue harsh criticism myself. But it is only the flawed opinion of a single editor. Others, like myself, greatly appreciate your contributions to the project. Although we haven't had much direct interaction, I've learned a lot from your contributions as I try to come up to speed as an editor myself. By all means, take a good Wikibreak and get some time away from the largest and most comprehensive collection of arguments in human history. But I hope that at some point you will return. Regards, --Mark viking (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you enable E-mail?
I would communicate with you about this case. It is fairly unjust to quit so large project as English Wikipedia because of conflict with one user. You were not even blocked, or did anybody destructed and spoiled your contributions? Here, you did not (and will not) experience such mishaps as could happen with a dissident user in other wikis. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I would also communicate also about this case. In fact I wanted to send you a copy of my post in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics‎‎ (summary: "I regret Deltahedron's decision") D.Lazard (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Cheer up
I too regret your decision, Deltahedron. On the other hand it is only human that you have lost the zeal to work with Wikipedia after so rude feedback. It is obvious that this feedback can't be called criticism, because 'criticism' should, by definition, be constructible. I would rather categorize this feedback as a bunch of bitter opinions made by an individual, not as facts (about the quality and/or quantity of your contributions to WP). Wikipedia is still relatively young, and so every Wikipedian is a pioneer of the first significant digital encyclopedia. It is an honour and a privilege. Think of all the future generations of mathematicians who will find WP as a valuable source of knowledge and inspiration! Idealism or not, but what we do here is not insignificant. Now, take first a good Wikibreak, as someone already has advised, and then re-assess your future involvement in Wikipedia. Cheer up! &mdash; Policron (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To cast it into different words: The critique you have received doesn't say anything about your work, everything it reveals is the attitude of the person who said it. &mdash;  Policron (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, best wishes and thank you!

I know it's rather late to say this, anyway I definitely second everything Mark Viking, D.Lazard, and Policron, have said. M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 22:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Mathsci is no longer editing wikipedia for the time being
If you really desided to stop contributing to the project because the conflict with Mathsci user - please take into account that at 17 Sep 2013 his profile was cleared and it is written that "Mathsci is no longer editing wikipedia for the time being". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.255.238.136 (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Mathsci has now been banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.80.215 (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Para-Hurwitz algebra
Hello.

You made a serious mistake [ here]: $$x * y = q(\bar x,\bar y) \ $$ is obviously an incorrect formula for para-Hurwitz multiplication, because it is just the scalar product. The correct one is
 * $$x * y = \bar x \bar y .$$

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You are correct, and that is indeed what Okubo's book said. Deltahedron (talk) 07:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good. Make the article better. BTW, there is an ongoing discussion about norm-1 quaternions and their group properties at talk: Versor. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you to editors who left messages of support here. I have decided to try again. Deltahedron (talk) 07:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Welcome back! --Mark viking (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Welcome back from me too. Hope you will have good time. Also, I thought that you might want to know that Wikipedia has introduced the draft namespace: it can be used to work on drafts collaboratively. But you can still put your drafts on your sandbox or subpages of the user page. -- Taku (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. Deltahedron (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Just did my twice-a-month check of your page Deltahedron, and what an excellent news my eyes did reach. So, welcome back! &mdash; Policron (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back
Thank you for a welcome message, and welcome back yourself. Superelliptic (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

banned user suggesting edits
Thanks (I guess) for notifying me. I don't know what exactly the rules say in such a situation, but it will be interesting to see what happens. And I was also astonished to see that you'd created the mutation article so recently. That explains a lot of the unexpected degree of defensiveness that my question generated, and I guess I'll have to be more vigilant and tread more softly during similar cases in the future. Sorry about that! I thought it was just a dusty article sitting around for a long time. Rschwieb (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Deltahedron (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Xcos
Hello Deltahedron, I see you revert the content I add to the Xcos page. I am not the creator of this page but just wanted to add some content and update information on a free and open source software based on the publisher website of the software (which is for me the best reliable source of information). If you consider this content promotional, I only consider it as factual. If you prefer a poor page without reliable and relevant content instead of a complete one, I invite you to directly suppress the page. For my part, I will not try to update it anymore. Comjulie (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Encyclopaedia articles should be verifiable and based on independent reliable sources. A company's view of its own products does not constitute a good basis to write an article, and the publisher's website is acceptable as a link where the reader can find the company's view if they want.  If the information is worth including it will have been published by an independent source.  Deltahedron (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Decoupling (mathematical analysis)
I responded at Talk:Decoupling (mathematical analysis) to your question on my talk page. --Jerzy•t 06:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

New requested articles
Hi Deltahedron,

I've moved your new requested articles to the math-logic subpage. I'm not familiar with the terms, but a Google-scholar search on "hyperhyperimmune set" suggests to me that it's a notion from recursion theory rather than set theory, so I generalized and put the rest of them in that section as well. Feel free to fix if I've made a mistake. --Trovatore (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not particularly worried where they go so long as the people who are likely to want to write articles on those subjects see them. Deltahedron (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Field trace
You're welcome and a belated welcome back.

I had thought that the way I phrased the section would make it clear that the Handbook citation would cover everything. However, the Lidl & Niederreiter reference is the better one since they include a proof and the Handbook doesn't. This brings me to a bit of a quandry which you can help me with. I only have the 1983 version of L&N and it appears that you have the 1997 version. The page number for this citation is the same in both editions. We have two harvard citations, one to the first edition and the other to the second, but only the 1983 edition is in the references. I think this should be straightened out and it seems like a dumb idea to change yours to the older edition, so could you upgrade the reference and change my harvard citation accordingly.

Also, I think that the lead here is pretty bad and needs some work. Currently, after a "say nothing" first sentence, you get a property and then a special case without giving the reader a hint about what the concept is. A gentler approach could be achieved by reordering the paragraphs, talking about vector spaces and pushing the inseparable stuff down into a section. I am a little hesitant about doing this myself since my background is entirely in the finite setting, so my view is a little distorted. I was wondering if you would be willing to assist in this endeavour ... we can deal with the details on the talk page. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Weird Number Disputed Content
I disagree with your reasoning for removing the content from the Weird Number page. Can you look at my comment in talk section? - RainMan002 (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Latex error in Singleton bound?
Hi Deltahedron,

I had put in the \substack command to improve the appearance of the expression. This rendered fine on my system (no error message, I got the effect I was after). Apparently you were seeing something different. I'd like to track down where the problem is, if only to avoid those commands which don't work the same for everyone. I am using Chrome with Windows 7 to view these pages. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I got
 * Failed to parse (unknown function '\substack'): d = \min_{\substack{x,y\: \in C \\ x \neq y}} d(x,y)
 * using FF3.6.24 under Fedora. Deltahedron (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
SarahStierch (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of Arithmetic Dynamics article
Hi Deltahedron,

I just wanted to explain why I've reverted away from the reference that you added to the article "Arithmetic Dynamics". The reference that you added actually does not contain any material that is related to what is in the current wikipedia article. What seems to have happened is that the authors of that reference came up with the term "arithmetic dynamics" independently to describe their work. If you want to add a section to the wikipedia article saying something like "The term arithmetic dynamics is also used to describe ..." and include the new reference, that would be fine. But otherwise I think that it is misleading to list that article as a reference in the wikipedia article.

Best wishes, Joe Silverman

JosephSilverman (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that — I see your point, although that is why I put it under Further reading, not References. It's better to have conversations like this on the article talk page so that other interested editors can take part if they wish.  Deltahedron (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding the additional item in the "additional topics" section so that people will know what the new reference (or further reading, either seems appropriate) is about. As for where to have such conversations, thanks for tip. This is actually the first time I've reverted an article (other than when someone does something completely nonsensical), so I didn't know the proper etiquette, and I wanted to make sure that you saw my full explanation so that you'd understand my reasons. But I guess if I'd added my comment to the article talk page, you'd have seen it there. JosephSilverman (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No problems. Deltahedron (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Mathematics scholarship competitions
Mathematics scholarship competitions has precisely one bluelinked mathematics competition in it. Since you unprodded it, I guess it falls to you to clean it up. Do you want some time to make it better before I take it to AfD? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It falls to me exactly as much as it falls to you or to any other editor, thank you for the suggestion. If it is your opinion that there is no place on Wikipedia for an article List of mathematics scholarship competitions then by all means initiate a community discussion at AFD, but you will of course be aware that AFD is not cleanup.


 * By the way, you chose to accompany your posting with an email alert. There is no special urgency or importance about your posting which would have required that, and it tends to create an atmosphere of drama around a perfectly ordinary issue.  Please don't do that.  Deltahedron (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * By "your posting" you mean on the talk page here? I don't think I did anything special that would have caused that — I intended it to just be a normal talk page posting — but in case it really was something I did rather than Wikipedia acting screwy on its own, I apologize for stimulating your sense of drama. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, it seems to have been a setting on my talk page -- I hadn't seen it happen before your posting here -- not something you did. Sorry about the confusion.  Deltahedron (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Firoozbakht's conjecture
Please take a look at he Firoozbakht's conjecture history. I don't want an edit war, but the information added by CRGreathouse also does not mention Firoozbakht's conjecture just as much as Shanks' conjecture does not. John W. Nicholson (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=608933993 your edit] to Stationary set may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * P}(X) is club (closed and unbounded) if and only if there is a function $$F:[X]^{ \omega}\to X$$ such that $$C=\{z:F[[z]^{  \omega}]\subset z\}$$. Here, $$[y]^{  \omega}$$ is the collection of finite subsets of $$y$$.
 * * Foreman, Matthew 2002  Stationary sets, Chang's Conjecture and partition theory, in Set Theory (The Hajnal Conference)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited J-structure, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Differential, Involution and Sum of squares (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "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:
 * Reviewing, 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. &mdash; MusikAnimal talk 22:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Deltahedron (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Geodesing Mapping for Dynamic Surface Alignment
Dear User:Deltahedron, Do you suggest that the paper should be mentioned in a different section (e.g., "Applications") or under the "External Links"? Also, I can provide a link to some code to compute a geodesic map between two surfaces. To the best of or knowledge, this is the first application of geodesic mapping for dynamic surfaces. Note that the paper is published in the IEEE Trans. PAMI journal which is a top journal in CS and EE. (The approach has also been presented at the prestigious computer vision conference CVPR.) Regards. 130.54.130.241 (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I will comment at the article talk page, which is the best place to discuss improvements to the article in question. Deltahedron (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding that talk page
I am sorry, I was a bit fractious regarding your revisions and comments. You know maybe just having negative positions against some mathematical subjects/researches like that (or what it was for Fermat's last theorem), etc., is not good idea. Researches must go ahead freely. In any case I am sorry again. Some of your edits in Wikipedia's pages are great. Good luck. JohnAu2000 (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC) (By the way, I just wrote a comment in Firoozbakht's conjecture talk's page. If you have time, take a look.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnAu2000 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that -- best wishes with your future edits. Deltahedron (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rational series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Characteristic function (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for wikiproject Mathematics at Wikimania 2014
Hi,

I noticed that you started work on signing up for a leaflet for Wikiproject Mathematics that we would print at Wikimania 2014. I was wondering if there is any update on that.

Please reply as soon as possible.

Thanks

Adikhajuria (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

RFD For Matrix polynomial
I have seen you have removed my proposal for deletion on Matrix polynomial, commenting "Disputed PROD: not the way to achieve a merger with Polynomial matrix". To be precise, what I was suggesting is that all the current content of Matrix polynomial should be deleted, and the entry should point to Polynomial matrix. I am not sure what this should be called; would you like me to propose it as a merge instead? Fph 17:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * In that case, you can achieve what you want simply by replacing the content with a redirect. Deletion is not necessary, and has the side-effect of deleting the article history, which is undesirable if at any point the article is reconstructed.  In this case, given that there is at least one book entirely about the concept of a matrix polynomial, it seems quite likely that at some stage there will be an article on the subject.  Deltahedron (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There is one already, it's Polynomial matrix. The one I want to remove contains a different non-standard definition and some results of dubious relevance. :) So, if I understand correctly, you are suggesting that I simply edit everything out and add a redirect instead of using WP:PM? Fph 18:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That is indeed a possible course of action you can do yourself whenever you like, and is appropriate if the articles are on the same subject. It would be a good idea to explain what you're doing on the article talk page, as is usual.


 * However, I would take issue with the assertion that matrix polynomial and polynomial matrix are identical: the polynomial ring over the matrix ring over a ring, (Mn(R))[X], and the matrix ring over the polynomial ring over a ring, Mn(R[X]) are not identical, although they are isomorphic.  Deltahedron (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

convergents series for Riemann Hypothesis
Helo Deltahedron.

Excuse me, I guess the most important is the contribution I present ( cinvergents series); as of today no one made a convergents series in Riemann Hypothesis. So has relevance for Wikipedia query because it serves students.

Another thing, do you be a good mathematician; refute the article.

It is regrettable his decision as librarian.

Regards. Jhon Hard (talk)12:22 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Mathematics rendering
Thanks for your message, I'm pleased that my project may be of interest. If someone with enough skills in LaTeX, HTML, CSS, PHP (and JavaScript for VisualEditor) and enough time (which is the one I lacks) wants to take the grant, I can prepare a roadmap and give some help during the process (in French or in English). Otherwise, I will probably write the tool step by step but at slow pace.

I try to find another developer among my friends, but I would welcome any help. Ambigraphe — Preceding undated comment added 13:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * could you reply to my comments on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics thanks a lot for your support for the math extension development --Physikerwelt (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Will do shortly. You might like to look at mw:Talk:Wikimedia_Engineering/2014-15_Goals too.  Deltahedron (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=616562116 your edit] to Homomorphism may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Saunders Mac Lane | title=Categories for the Working Mathematician | publisher=Springer-Verlag | isbn=0-387-90036-5 }}  {{cite book | page=363 | title=Hopf Algebra: An Introduction |

Disambiguation link notification for August 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gilbreath's conjecture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unsolved Problems in Number Theory. 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) 09:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Kathleen Ollerenshaw
I hope this is leaving a message for you, I find the whole "edit wiki" thing very complicated. With regards to Dame Kathleen Ollerenshaw I did not know what to put under "cite or reference" as the information on her death has come to me via a friend who still works at St John Ambulance (where I used to work) to say she died last night. I am hoping to get links or information to her funeral but I am not sure if that will be posted on a website for me to "cite" the website? I do not yet have info if she died after midnight ie 11/08/14 or before it ie 10/08/14 but was going to update my edit on Wiki if I eventually found that information out. I knew Dame Kathleen via my working at St John Ambulance (their original county HQ building was financed largely by funding raised by Dame Kathleen and she set up their first computer system so is there any way to put the date of her death on the page if her funeral details are not posted on a website anywhere?

RespectForDameKathleen (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC) if those squiggles do not sign my user name it is RespectForDameKathleen


 * Thank you for your response. As you know, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and we report only what can be verified by independent reliable sources.  A personal communication that cannot be verified cannot be used.  If and when someone's death is announced and reported, for example in the press, then we can cite the press report.  We need to be very careful when writing about living people to make sure that our articles are accurate.  Deltahedron (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

OK I will wait to see if there is anything reported which can be linked to. Thank you.

RespectForDameKathleen (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I should say, incidentally, that I had met Dame Kathleen on various occasions and was sorry to hear the report, whether or not we can yet report it on Wikipedia. Deltahedron (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I notice it has been updated now with the newspaper report. http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/dame-kathleen-ollerenshaw-former-lord-7597607

She was one absolutely amazing lady, I went to her house once and she had virtually a full sized telescope sticking out through the roof! RespectForDameKathleen (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop writing new article about stuff you don't understand much
Rational series being a prime example. Dumping a bunch of defs from a book is easy. It's clear that you don't understand much about the topic given all the links you didn't place in the article. JMP EAX (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Also read WP:V. You have added these references to the crappy stub on rational language, seemingly verifying the content. Show me where they actually define the notion as written in that wiki page. JMP EAX (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't be rude: I won't respond to this sort of stuff. If you have suggestions for improving the article, make them in the article talk page, or be bold and edit it yourself.  Deltahedron (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Quote of the day
"Refusal to engage in a constructive way is a toxic experience and one which is likely to discourage other editors more than any other single factor. "

I am taking this abridged version of your comment on JW's talk page for my talk page quote of the day (they generally last a few weeks at least) - I hope you don't mind!

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC).


 * Feel free! Deltahedron (talk) 06:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! Deltahedron (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case
You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of Wikipedia
Thank you for your supportive comments on Jimmy's page. I'm happy to discuss these issues on-wiki if you are.

One problem with the model I'm putting forward is that medicine and the public understanding of medicine are richly funded enterprises. It is possible (though not certain) that I'll find an independent charity to fund the medical reliability project, but other, less well endowed topics may struggle finding independent funding. I think the chances of getting independent funding for those topics will be enhanced once the medical project is up and running and showing results.

The fall-back position is asking the WMF to fund it. Again, the chances of them budgeting for that will be better if the medicine thing is producing results. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Mathematics and mechanics of complex systems
I answered in my discussion page. Canpacor (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Case Opened: Banning Policy
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 12:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 9 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Mathematics page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=624851834 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F624851834%7CWikipedia:Requested articles/Mathematics%5D%5D Ask for help])

Meetup?
Hi. I'm going to be in the UK from 19th to 25th October. Is there any chance we could meet for a chat? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Theta group
Hi, please comment on the difference of opinion on the definition of the theta group Talk:Congruence_subgroup. References would be particularly helpful. Thanks. Dapengzhang0 (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Math 2.0
We finally managed to improve Math rendering within Wikipedia http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-math/2014Oct/0003.html Now, I'd like to collect user feedback and see which features are still missing after Math 2.0. Please let me know if you consider to help with that. Especially with the communication to the community. --Physikerwelt (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you're using any of the mailing lists, but this just came through so I wanted to copy it over to you (sorry for my poor formatting):

Dear Wikipedians,

We'd like to announce a major update of the Math (rendering) extension.

For registered Wikipedia users, we have introduced a new math rendering mode using MathML, a markup language for mathematical formulae. Since MathML is not supported in all browsers [1], we have also added a fall-back mode using scalable vector graphics (SVG).

Both modes offer crisp rendering at any resolution, which is a major advantage over the current image-based default. We'll also be able to make our math more accessible by improving screenreader and magnification support.

We encourage you to enable the MathML mode in your Appearance preferences. As an example, the URL for this section on the English Wikipedia is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering

For editors, there are also two new optional features:

1) You can set the "id" attribute to create math tags that can be referenced. For example, the following math tag

E=mc^2

can be referenced by the wikitext

mass energy equivalence

This is true regardless of the rendering mode used.

2) In addition, there is the attribute "display" with the possible values "block" or "inline". This attribute can be used to control the layout of the math tag with regard to centering and size of the operators. See https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Math/Displaystyle for a full description, of this feature.

Your feedback is very welcome. Please report bugs in Bugzilla against the Math extension, or post on the talk page here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_talk:Math

All this is brought to you by Moritz Schubotz and Frédéric Wang (both volunteers) in collaboration with Gabriel Wicke, C. Scott Ananian, Alexandros Kosiaris and Roan Kattouw from the Wikimedia Foundation. We also owe a big thanks to Peter Krautzberger and Davide P. Cervone of MathJax for the server-side math rendering backend.

Best,

Gabriel Wicke (GWicke) and Moritz Schubotz (Physikerwelt)

[1]: Currently MathML is supported by Firefox & other Gecko-based browsers, and accessibility tools like Apple's VoiceOver. There is also partial support in WebKit.


 * I hope this is helpful to you! --Rdicerb (WMF) (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)