User talk:Mistory

March 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Mathematical analysis do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 21:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Forum of Mathematics


The article Forum of Mathematics has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable: journals don't even exist yet. Article creation vastly premature. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

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. Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Forum of Mathematics for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Forum of Mathematics 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/Forum of Mathematics 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 template from the top of the article. Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Raghavendra's algorithm for solving linear equations


The article Raghavendra's algorithm for solving linear equations has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Violation of WP:V the only sources are an unpublished paper and a blog entry. While this might be a great result and I respect Tao's comments in the blog, it has not yet been vetted through peer review and so it is too soon for it to be an encyclopedia article.

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. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

About Comparison of computer algebra systems
I like what you did there, breaking out calculators in a separate table. It simplified the original table, and allows students and parents to focus on a subset of the applications of particular interest to them without becoming lost in complexity. Have you considered further rationalizing the presentation, perhaps displaying less comprehensive applications in one table with clearly-defined features as the column labels, and more comprehensive applications in another table with a looser, more verbose structure to accommodate their different and somewhat disjoint feature sets? In any case, good job. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It was actually already that way earlier. It's just that some recent edits had corrupted the table formatting accidentally, leading to sections appearing to be merged. After that all I did was rename the Handheld section to Graphing calculator section because nowadays we have smartphones and tablets and suchlike so the word handheld isn't descriptive enough. Mistory (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)