User talk:Maggyero

Welcome!

 * }

June 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Lord Kossity has been reverted. Your edit here to Lord Kossity was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.myspace.com/LordKo) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Top Shotta


The article Top Shotta has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non notable mixtape

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shadowjams (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Particle velocity
 * added a link pointing to Logarithmic


 * Sound exposure
 * added a link pointing to Logarithmic


 * Sound intensity
 * added a link pointing to Logarithmic


 * Sound power
 * added a link pointing to Logarithmic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Acoustic impedance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pascal. 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) 15:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Quote marks
I prefer the typographic quote marks, and I'm not going to revert you, but you should probably be aware that ascii quotes are recommended for WP. See MOS:QUOTEMARKS. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Alright. Since there were both used in the same article I chose a version. — Maggyero (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Nice work on Offset printing. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited CMYK color model, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CIE. 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) 09:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015
Hello, I'm Orphan Wiki. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Analytic signal with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Orphan Wiki 00:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)okay

Disambiguation link notification for February 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Radiosity (heat transfer)
 * added links pointing to Photometry and Opaque


 * Radiant exitance
 * added a link pointing to Photometry

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Exposure (photography), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Photometry. 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) 08:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Revert
Hi Maggyero. I reverted some of your edits to Radiant flux. There were a couple of issues: --Srleffler (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Phrases like "within a given duration" and "wavelength span", etc. misrepresent the derivative. A derivative of energy transferred with respect to time is not the total energy transferred divided by some finite time. Flux is an instantaneous quantity, and can be directly measured as such. ∂t is not a duration. ∂λ is not a span. One can divide total energy by time duration to obtain average flux, but that is a different thing.
 * It's sometimes helpful in physics to consider a "system", and sometimes not. Electromagnetic radiation carries energy. This is true whether or not the radiation comes from some defined "system". Emphasizing over and over again that the flux is a property of a "system" is unnecessary, distracting, and not particularly correct. The flux is a property of the radiation itself.
 * Generally, in physics articles, it's poor form to present equations as if they were dependent on a particular choice of units unless they are in fact so dependent. Most physical equations are correct in any consistent system of units. The equation for radiant flux works just as well in joules per second or ergs per second. Presenting the equation as if one must use Joules and seconds is misleading.


 * Hello Srleffler. Thank you for your contribution. About the issues:
 * I do not agree on this point: ∂t is a duration, and more precisely—even if I did not specify it—an elementary time duration. Same remark for ∂λ and all the other ∂[something]. But I admit it makes the text heavier and it not essential.
 * I agree.
 * You are right.
 * — Maggyero (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification for March 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beer–Lambert law, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Absorptivity. 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) 09:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Absorbance
 * added a link pointing to Emittance


 * Optical depth
 * added a link pointing to Emittance

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Molar attenuation coefficient
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Molar attenuation coefficient, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Molar absorptivity. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Maggyero, the above bot notice is because you renamed Molar absorptivity to Molar attenuation coefficient by pasting the content into a new article, and then redirecting the old one. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. The preferred way to rename a page is to "Move" the article to its new name using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new.  I've put a tag on the page for an admin to come by and fix the history, but for future reference please just do the Move as described here, thanks!  Crow  Caw  21:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Particle velocity
 * added a link pointing to Bel


 * Sound exposure
 * added a link pointing to Bel


 * Sound intensity
 * added a link pointing to Bel


 * Sound power
 * added a link pointing to Bel


 * Sound pressure
 * added a link pointing to Bel

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reflectance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CIE. 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) 09:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Definition and properties of Em (typography)
Hi, I appreciate that you clearly are making this edit in good faith, and apparently even have a source. However, the point (no pun intended) remains that your source is either wrong in general, or was correct only as regards some very limited time period of type design and/or geographic area.

I am curious about which direction your source asserts the relationship goes? Is it (1) that the zero must be designed to be half an em wide? Or (2) that the em in each typeface is by definition the width of two zeros?

If the assertion is (1), then this can be disproved by simple observation. I can point out that while the zero in Times (New) Roman is half an em, that in Arial and Helvetica is not (in Arial, it is 1139/2048, or over 10% wider). Although digits in general are typically made all the same width, and that width was often half an em in metal, this was neither a requirement nor universal in metal type, and is much less common in digital type—it would be a quite small minority of recent typefaces that have this proportion, as virtually nobody who designs type today has heard of this supposed relationship (I had, but had forgotten it, and filed it away in my head as “QuarkXPress has this odd bug”). I just went and plucked a bunch of zeros from my drawer of 60-pt Columbus metal type (produced 1892, after the standardization of the Anglo-American point). When I put two of them together the block is noticeably wider than its height—as proved by putting a third zero at right angles to the first pair. I can take a picture if you like.

If the assertion is (2), then the facts just above cause a conflict between (2) and the rest of the article, which states that an em is by definition the same as the current point size. (An em square in metal type was a square with height and width equal to the current point size.) This definition of the em is a fundamental aspect of digital type technology, you cannot avoid it—it controls how type is rasterized ans scaled. See for example the TrueType/OpenType specification itself (https://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/TTCH01.htm), the discussion here: http://typophile.com/node/48669 or my article about point size and the em square here: http://www.thomasphinney.com/2011/03/point-size/.

I could add that I have repeatedly given sworn testimony as an expert witness under oath about this, most recently on Monday in New York City, in Strubel v Capital One. But I know direct personal expertise counts for nought on Wikipedia—one needs to cite sources.

Thomas Phinney (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Thomas Phinney, actually I found my statement here, from the great French typographer Jean-Pierre Lacroux, who cites the source I gave you (paragraph #3): http://www.orthotypographie.fr/volume-I/cabochon-citation.html#Cadratin
 * For your question, Jean-Pierre Lacroux defines the em as it is defined in the Wikipedia article so the answer to your question (2) is clearly no. Now for your question (1) I cannot answer based on what Jean-Pierre Lacroux says and I don't have access to his source (which is one of the most reliable source for French typography).


 * Seeing it in context is helpful. Lacroux mentions that a zero is nine units wide. This is a measurement specific to a system in which the em is divided into 18 units, such as was done by Monotype (and later Linotype) hot metal typecasting systems, for a few decades, until they switched to finer measurement systems. This is consistent with my observation that Times New Roman has half-em numeral widths—it is a Monotype typeface. But again, many other fonts, in fact most available today, even some descending directly from metal, do not have this relationship.
 * The nine-unit statement is also evidence that your source was coming from some very narrow perspective, perhaps with a great deal of experience in one particular manufacturer's machines. But for your source to be right, either virtually every source out there—including the font formats themselves (!)—are incorrect about the em being equal to the current point size, or your additional definition is (at best) limited to a particular few typesetting devices for some particularly limited stretch of time. Here's a picture I posted on Twitter, showing zeros in two different typefaces, in which they are either narrower or wider than the point size. https://twitter.com/ThomasPhinney/status/592077632834908160


 * In other words, I have demonstrated, there are two interpretations of the general statement, (1) is contradicted by simple observation of both metal and digital fonts, or (2) would make the em different for every font, and not the same as the point size, and hence contradict every other source out there.
 * Here are a few additional sources for my point (2) above:
 * Adobe (https://www.adobe.com/studio/print/pdf/typographic_terms.pdf) "The em is the width of the point size"
 * Lawson, Alexander, and Dwight Agner. Printing Types: An Introduction (second edition). Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1971/1990. "Em: The square of a type size. Only in the 12-point size does this equal 12 points." (p. 50)
 * Bringhurst, Robert. The Elements of Typographic Style (fourth edition). Seattle, WA: Hartley & Marks, 2012. "One em is a distance equal to the type size. In 6 point type, an em is 6 points...." (p. 25)
 * I could go on and on. Felici's Complete Manual of Typography (p. 301) "em: a relative measurement equal to the point size of the type in use"; Canavaugh's Digital Type Design Guide (p. 3) "An em is a unit of distance equal to the point size." Etcetera.
 * Again, I submit that the assertion that an em is definitionally the width of two zeros can be interpreted in two ways: (1) an em is also what all the other sources say it is, but it is also true that the zero is always half of that width—which is contradicted by simple evidence; or (2) the width of the em is determined by the width of the zero, and is hence variable, which contradicts at least 99% of available sources, including the font formats themselves.
 * If you want the edit to stand, you need to come up with some other interpretation of information that makes it consistent with the rest of reality.
 * Thomas Phinney (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, please read the citation in context. It is an attack against the assertion that an em is the width of an M. It points out that this was not true under the Monotype system, where the very widest letters were at most 15/18 wide, where the em was 18 units, and the zero was half the em. This was a consequence of the Monotype system, not a universal truth. This fact is sufficient to undermine an assertion of a contrary universal truth, but it does not make the em always equal to the width of two zeros, everywhere.
 * “On lit parfois que le cadratin a dans la ligne le même encombrement que le M. C’est inexact. Il suffit de rappeler que, dans le système Monotype, le cadratin avait le même nombre d’unités (18) que les capitales doubles (Æ, Œ, W) et le tiret (—), alors que le M en comptait trois de moins (15). La formule « un cadratin égale la chasse de deux chiffres 0 », souvent proposée dans les manuels de P.A.O., est correcte (0–9 unités). —Lecerf 1956.”
 * Thomas Phinney (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your argument. I think you are right and Lacroux was only talking about the specific 18-unit em Monotype system and I thought it was a universal truth. Indeed, Lacroux mentions it applies to P.A.O. which is an acronym for Publication Assistée par Ordinateur—D.T.P. or Desktop Publishing in English—, his source dates from 1956, plus he specifies 9 units in parentheses (so he refered to the 18-unit em Monotype system).
 * — Maggyero (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC).


 * Thanks for the discussion. On the DTP part, as I mentioned earlier, there was one DTP system (QuarkXPress) that did indeed use two zeros for the em (horizontally, but not vertically as they still scaled fonts correctly). But others (PageMaker, InDesign) did not. Anyway, it reminded me of how Monotype and Quark did things, which was useful. :)  Thomas Phinney (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Molar attenuation coefficient, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mole. 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) 09:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Attenuation coefficient
 * added a link pointing to Absorption


 * Beer–Lambert law
 * added a link pointing to Absorption


 * Mass attenuation coefficient
 * added a link pointing to Absorption

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Synchronization (computer science), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Event, Solaris and Barrier. 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) 09:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Arithmetic logic unit, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Chamith  (talk)  04:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Distributed shared memory
 * added a link pointing to MPI


 * Multi-core processor
 * added a link pointing to Vector


 * Parallel computing
 * added a link pointing to Processing unit


 * Superscalar processor
 * added a link pointing to Processing unit

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Amdahl's law
 * added a link pointing to Latency


 * Speedup
 * added a link pointing to Parallel processing

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gustafson's law, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Latency. 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) 09:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Conflicting edits to 'parallel programming model'
Hi Maggyero. I have just updated the parallel programming model article with some substantial revisions to improve clarity and referencing. You had however also made some changes at the same time. I have tried to merge your changes into the current version, but I did not keep the changes of 'process' to 'task'. I wanted to maintain the differentiation between a process, which is a sequence of actions, with a task which is the encapsulation of some behavior (i.e. component in the decomposition of an algorithm). I'm happy to discuss this though. JamieHanlon (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi JamieHanlon,
 * Great edit, thanks. I was not aware of such a distinction, for me a task was either a thread or a process.
 * Maggyero (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC).

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) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Graph
Your assertion is obviously wrong. However, rather than continuing this idiotic edit war, I suggest you join me in discussion on the talk page; I have already started a thread there. You could, for example, try to demonstrate the incorrect claim that a perfectly good, non-technical definition of path graph actually means something else. You could even try responding to my explanations about why your preferred definition is not a good choice, something you have not done yet. --JBL (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Translation
Hi, how to translate a English Wikipedia page to other languages... i need the 1st step, i.e, after translation... when i open the English page of the subject, then go to language option, it should show the new language.... how can i do it ?... Sagir Ahmed Msa (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. Click on the button "Edit links" below the section "Languages" and add a new entry in your language in the table "Wikipedia". — Maggyero (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC).

chmod changes from user to owner
I notice you changes all the references in the chmod article from user to owner. Although owner may be more exact, the use of user in the descriptions is consistent with the u flag. The use of owner is easily confused with others. It would must likely be a big mistake of someone to type chmod w+o filename when the meant to change the permissions for the owner. I will be changing them back in the future unless you have strong objections.

DGerman (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=723809246 your edit] to Luminosity function may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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) 11:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * by Wald (1945) and by Crawford (1949).

Disambiguation link notification for June 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Luminous efficacy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lumen. 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) 09:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited JavaScript, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TCL. 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) 09:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

JavaScript
I have reversed part of your amendments to the above article, as the new content appears to have been directly copied from http://speakingjs.com/es5/ch04.html, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I may have made a mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Likewise, I've removed the section "Suffix reference" that you added to Uniform Resource Identifier, because you copied it directly from the text of RFC 3986. Please do not make a habit of doing this. —  Scott  •  talk  13:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

xml:id
You seem to have removed that section from XML. Why? Tim Bray (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Software testing definitions
Where are you coming up with these equivalent terms? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have found those terms here.
 * Maggyero (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Pure Function
Your opinion is incorrect. You are relying on assertion. I am supplying citations from the computer science literature and from college courses. See the Talk page for the article. Please do not rely on assertion to enforce your incorrect opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerberus0 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Total order: Schmidt.Ströhlein.1993
Hi! Thanks for the reference. Are you sure that it mentions all name versions (total, linear, simple, connex)? Google doesn't show me p.32 today. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi! You are welcome. It's weird because on my side Google shows me page 32 (but not page 27 to 31). The book mentions "linear ordering", "linear strict-ordering", and "connex ordering" and "semiconnex strict-ordering" as their respective synonyms. However it does not mention "total orders" as it uses the term "total" for the "left-total" property as defined here, nor does it mention "simple orders" (at least in the pages accessible from Google). So these two latter terms need a source as well.
 * Maggyero (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I should be able to find a reference on "total order", but I'm not sure about "simple". - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I found a reference in Birkhoff.1967 and added it. Hope the formatting is ok. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks.
 * — Maggyero (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Common Gateway Interface, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Python. 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) 06:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
Your edit to Representational state transfer 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. – Novem Linguae (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

You have recently reverted my week’s work on the article Representational state transfer, claiming that they may violate copyright. This is not the case, as Roy Fielding states explicitly on the site hosting his doctoral dissertation (https://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/faq.htm):

"Copying or printing this work

You may have noticed that I have included a copyright statement of "All rights reserved" on all pages of this HTML edition. The purpose of that is to make it clear who owns the copyright (me) so that you don't go asking the University of California or UMI (the microfiche archive company) for the following permission.

I, Roy Thomas Fielding, hereby grant permission to You, whoever you may be, to copy, print, or otherwise reproduce this dissertation for non-commercial use (including classroom, research, government use, or anything covered by the usual notion of "fair use") in its original PDF edition, 2-up PDF edition, or HTML edition, or excerpts thereof, provided that any such reproduction includes the full reference to this work, as described below, either on the initial page of the reproduction or by citation to a list of references within a larger work. If you would like to reproduce this work for commercial purposes, as in selling it as a book or a significant part of a published compilation, then you will have to ask for my permission separately."

So could we restore my work?

Best regards,

Maggyero (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Maggyero. Thanks for the explanation. I responded on my user talk page. – Novem Linguae (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Fermat's little theorem
Hi @Maggyero, i notice you edit Fermant's little theorem, at the begining of the article: If a is not divisible by p, that is if a is coprime to p. However as far as i know, if a is not divisible by p, it's not sufficient to say a is coprime to p. Jimgreen2013 (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Jimgreen2013,
 * Theorem: For all primes p, a is not divisible by p is equivalent to a is coprime to p.
 * Proof: Assume that a is not divisible by p. Let d be a common divisor of a and p. d is 1 or p since p is prime. If d was p then it would contradict the fact that a is not divisible by p, hence d is 1. Therefore a is coprime to p.
 * Assume that a is coprime to p. If p divided a then p would be a common divisor of a and p and therefore p would be 1 since a is coprime to p, which would contradict the fact that p is prime. Therefore a is not divisible by p. QED.
 * Best, — Maggyero (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)