User talk:Maths314

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Please translate Blender from German to English
Hi,


 * Just came to know that you are a German to English translator. It would be highly appreciated if you could give a little bit of time translating the Blender article to English. Especially the version release history part because it is stuck at 2.63 (April 27, 2012) which may give the impression to readers that Blender is not updated for a long time. Though I don't know German language but looking at the German article anyone can understand that it is much more richer than its English counterpart. So if you have time please make the English article rich also.


 * Thanks in advance. Waiting for your response.


 * Best regards,
 * --Adp333adp (talk) 05:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi! Looking at the German Blender article, it does not seem to have better information – "Funktionalität" is the same as "Features"; "Geschichte" is "History"; "Beispiele für den Einsatz von Blender" is "Open projects"; and "Literatur" contains only German literature. However, you are right that the English Blender article has not been updated to the newer versions; and many references are quite old. Some more images could also be useful. I'll fix those parts, but apart from that the English article looks a lot more developed to me.
 * Regards, —Maths314 (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: FlightGear Comment
Hi Maths314. Could you explain the formatting error? I understand about not citing, and plan to gather the sources and redo the page. But where was there a formatting error? Legoboyvdlp Let's talk! 20:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi! There were a few things that came to my mind.
 * The infobox is a template, which has a fixed list of parameters it aligns in a table. It is not possible to add arbitrary rows to one (for the sake of consistency), so the Download of Beta parameter you added would not have any effect. You can have a look at the list of allowed parameters for Infobox software. Now that I see it, frequently updated also seems not to be allowed, but this was another person's error.
 * The latest preview date infobox parameter should be a real date, in the format.
 * Avoid words like "recently".
 * Dates should not be formatted like 23/09/15, but either like 23 September 2015 or September 23, 2015. The article uses the latter, so be consistent. Note that you should also use this format in references; there is a common misunderstanding that they won't be understood by computers, but this is wrong.
 * If you have the reference, don't write sentences like "According to, ...", but instead add it as a real reference between tags.
 * You should add your references directly with the information. You can also add a or citation needed (or both) if you don't have any at the moment.
 * But please don't let this discourage you. Everyone has to start somewhere :-)
 * Regards, —Maths314 (talk) 07:59, 26 September 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) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the amazing edits to the libGDX article
The additions you've included for the backends and history are well appreciated. libGDX is one of the most popular game engines on android and it's good to have a good article on the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Jonathan (talk • contribs) 08:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi and thanks! I've been using libGDX for some while, so I thought I could give something back by improving its Wikipedia article. —Maths314 (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Blender latest stable release template is not updating
Hi,


 * As you can see I have added LSR template to the Blender article [|[1]]. But it is not updating. After investigating the issue I found that [|[2]] is which I created. But when clicking the [±] link, it directs to [stable software release/Blender (software)?action=edit|[3]] page which is somehow not linking to the article thus not updating. So the page which looks like valid is adding _(software) to the URL. I can also view the template and manually hit the edit tab which directs to the [stable software release/Blender&action=edit|[4]] URL which can also be edited; though I have not edited it because of confusion. So I have created [stable software release/Blender|[2]] rather than [stable software release/Blender (software)|[5]] because it already contains Latest stable software release in the URL. So can you please consider to end the confusion and correct it accordingly.


 * Thanks in advance. Waiting for your response.


 * Best regards,
 * --Adp333adp (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as I can understand you want the LSR template to use the "Blender" subpage instead of "Blender (software)"? But why? The subpages are named like the article and while I understand that the "software" may seem redundant here, I think it is better to make the template not too complicated. After all, you can't be sure that there are never going to be any "Something" and "Something (software)" articles that both use the template, which would break it. And it works, so why spend extra work on something that doesn't give any real benefits?


 * So I'd just leave it like it is right now. You can place db-author on the page you created to have it deleted.


 * Regards,
 * Maths314 (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Solarus (video game engine) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Solarus (video game engine) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Solarus (video game engine) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The1337gamer (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Latest preview release
A template you created has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Primefac (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you help verify translations of articles from German
Hello Maths314,

Would you be able to help evaluate the accuracy of translations of Wikipedia articles from German to English Wikipedia?



This would involve evaluating a translated article on the English Wikipedia by comparing it to the original German article, and marking it "Pass" or "Fail" based on whether the translation faithfully represents the original. Here's the reason for this request:

There are a number of articles on English Wikipedia that were created as machine translations from different languages including German, using the Content Translation tool, sometimes by users with no knowledge of the source language. The config problem that allowed this to happen has since been fixed, but this has left us with a backlog of articles whose accuracy of translation is suspect or unknown, including some articles translated from German. In many cases, other editors have come forward later to copyedit and fix any English grammar or style issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the translation is accurate, as factual errors from the original translation may remain. To put it another way: Good English is not the same as good translation.

If you can help out, that would be great. Here's a sample of the articles that need checking:
 * 1) SJ E10
 * 2) So You Want To Write A Fugue?

All you have to do, is compare the English article to the German article, and assess them "Pass" or "Fail" (the Pass and Fail templates may be useful here). (Naturally, if you feel like fixing an inaccurate translation and then assessing it, that's even better, but it isn't required.) Also please note that we are assessing accuracy not completeness, so if the English article is much shorter that is okay, as long as whatever has been translated so far is factually accurate.

If you can help, please ping me here to let me know. You can add your pass/fails above, right next to each link, or you may indicate your results below. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)