User talk:PrimeHunter/Archive 6

READ
Hello... I'm User 71.146.31.102, and you helped me with the countdown timer? It still says this event has already finished...im not sure what happened, please help....thanks............


 * You have made a lot of edits and I haven't looked through all of them but your problem may be time zones. Template:Countdown says: "the time on this countdown clock is GMT (UTC+0)". See Greenwich Mean Time. I guess you are trying to use some American time zone instead. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Got it. Thanks. A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Just realized that this is me, thanks again,  A  user who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010.  18:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Article on Home Primes
I'm going to write this article, and I just wanted to bring your attention to it. Not a whole lot of people take any interest in it, but enough do and enough time and resources have been devoted to it to justify an article. Once I'm done, I'll submit updates on 49 (number), 77 (number), and whatever other articles might warrant having mention of the subject. I'm going to also be looking at bases 2 through 9 (at least) myself, and I also have a related set of questions on not-increasing factor listings. I guess I'll use this space to fill you in on where I stand with that rather than continuing up in the earlier cluttered section. Julzes (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, home primes seem notable enough for an article. Per Wikipedia naming conventions it should be Home prime. Variations like other bases may be mentioned if there are reliable sources. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the naming convention to my attention. I don't expect there will be anything on alternative bases, but it might be dealt with in the original Journal of Recreational Mathematics article that isn't really even part of the start of the base-10 research (The idea died until someone else came up with it independently). I guess I can justify a trip to the library tomorrow to see. I started a program in search of the first real sticking point in numbers less than or equal to the square of a base, and it might be 21 in base 5, 41 that is to say. Everything up to that was spat out instantaneously. As for how many steps are required to get a single prime, just in base 10, from free orderings of the factors, 8 actually requires 4 steps and I suspect it may be hard to find a number that requires 5 if you're interested. I messaged Mathworld to tell them that their article is out of date yesterday, by the way. You know a logjam was broken in February, right? I expect I'll be placing the article's first version late in the day tomorrow.Julzes (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a very inefficient program running on the question regarding arbitrary orderings (and note the changes 3->4 and 4->5 above). So far, only 289, 361, 961, and 1233 match 8, with a fairly long time since 1233 came out.  I'm pretty sure heuristics would argue for the non-existence of a number requiring 6 steps, and possibly even 5 with an initial empirical foundation.Julzes (talk) 06:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That was extremely inefficient, taking over a 1/2 day to get 1527. I fixed one major.  Now I have to fix the other.Julzes (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There are base 2 results at http://oeis.org/search?q=%22home+prime%22+%22base+2%22 and http://www.worldofnumbers.com/topic1.htm. I have only seen base 2 and 10 discussed. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks.Julzes (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm behind schedule. The JRM article is pretty much lacking in value, though I suppose I will repeat Heleen's terminology since he did originate the idea (I was mistaken). He wrote an article in a journal that I'm guessing right now is defunct that doesn't have a wikipedia article on it--Recreational and Educational Computing. I wish that I had taken 30 seconds after mimeographing the '96 article to look at the source. Perhaps the other article is there too. I tried to look in this year's JRM, but peculiarly the library just got an issue from 2006 a few weeks ago. I had no idea such things occur, but apparently it's not at all unheard of. Anyway, I'll throw together something a little more substantial than a stub and put out e-mails to deGeest, Caldwell, and the people who've been involved in research, as well as Heleen, tomorrow. There's nothing theoretical done even in private communications that I am aware of, other than the fact that all numbers have a home prime (and that without any better source than Mathworld and deGeest's site). 21 in base 5 is indeed stuck at something like 105 digits right now, and I haven't started a program on ordering factors differently yet.Julzes (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the article is not very far from where I intend to leave it. I still need to do some work connecting references as well as adding OEIS to them. If you see something glaringly wrong, let me know and I'll make the requisite change rather than your needing to do it yourself. I'm going to send out a number of e-mails shortly to see if any of the people involved think something important has been missed. I just treat De Geest's page as the place to go for detail (explicitly in the text). I think that he and his website could use brief articles also, and the same might be said about the publication in which Heleen first published his article.

Thanks for clearing up my gross error at the reference desk. As I say there, I expect a small coincidence once I've input non-conservative values. The coincidence I'm finding more interesting involves the absence of medium-sized prime factors in the collection of 120 fifth iterates from those that translate 4 times. As far as the other-base research on the topic here is concerned, I satisfied myself that it's false that 49 and 77 in base 10 are the first difficult cases and have dropped that subject. 21 in base 5 was joined by at least three numbers in base 7. I still have trying thequestionconcerning arbitrary factor orders high on my agenda, but I haven't begun pursuing it.Julzes (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no coincidence in what I was most recently doing at the reference desk. I have a new pseudo-probability of 0.052 for the 120 smaller numbers, and 0.18 for the 211. 960961 also is palindromic 15 times. And I need to start over with arbitrary orderings. The very first 8-fold translation from base 5 translates a 9th time, and this is more significant.Julzes (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

http://www.mersennewiki.org has the most complete data on home primes, including lists for bases 2 through 9.Julzes (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed nothing yet exists on emirpimes. Should it have a seperate article or should emirp be retitled and include it? Incidentally, the first number that's a product of 7 distinct primes whose reversal is also (but non-palindromic) is 10444434.Julzes (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 10444434 is in A113548. emirpimes have uncertain notability for their own article but could redirect to another article with mention of them. emirp shouldn't be renamed just because it mentions something else. I once worked a little on emirpimes but didn't publish anything. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be good to write an article on Digit Reversal. Palindromic numbers and Emirps could reasonably either be eliminated or stay, and emirpimeses would just redirect there. Let me know what you think about such an article, its best name, and what should be done about the already extant articles. Thanks for pointing out the OEIS sequence. I guess I'm still going to make that tonight's offering to Prime Curios, but I'll send Mr. Honaker a note saying that you pointed out its unoriginality. By the way, do you know about the number of primes between M31 and M61? That's a pretty nice semiprime, with factors 37 and a number ending with 37 and the string 9999 included. I happened to look it up the same day Honaker put it in OEIS because of the problem he posted at '19' in Prime Curios. I suppose we may some day, perhaps soon, have primepi(M89), but that's probably as far as we'll ever go.Julzes (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I just thought I'd mention an interesting prime-record race I have going on. Up to almost a million now, there is exactly one prime that's a palindrome in 15 bases from 2 through itself minus 2 (950041) and exactly one prime that's an emirp in 15 consecutive bases less than itself (743933). I wonder which should win out in the long run. Also, either my replacement program for arbitrary factor orderings is defective, or no number after 1527 takes 4 iterations for quite a while. Should have had it start at 1527 as a check.Julzes (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanksfor helping on the help page. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobherry (talk • contribs) 14:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Some things I want to discuss
1. First of all, I think should be a category for "Central African people of ethnic or national origin" because every other country on wikipedia has a category for people's ethnicity so I thought Central African people should have that category. 2. Hikaru_Sulu on his wikipedia page says he is of Filipino descent so there should be a category that says :Fictional_American_people_of_Filipino_descent. 3. There should be a category for Fictional people with ADHD or Fictional people with Dyslexia. Percy_jackson is listed under both. 4. I would like to make an article about the novel More Than Weird. Here's an article about it: http://www.umanitoba.ca/cm/cmarchive/vol16no4/morethanweird.html I don't know why it was deleted. 5. I would like to add a summary for the movie The_Seventh_Coin. Could someone help me with that? Thank you! Neptunekh2 (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Digit reversal and rearrangement
The above section can't be edited to, at least by me, so if we have a discussion about this proposed article we should do it here. I'll refrain from talking about unrelated matters and place anything interesting I just learned at my own talk space. If I have something you might be interested in, I'll put '(!!!)' at the end of an on-topic post.Julzes (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by "The above section can't be edited to, at least by me". Which section and why do you say it can't be edited to? Article names should only capitalize the first word. See Naming conventions (capitalization). PrimeHunter (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume it must be a limitation of my particular device, but once a space reaches a certain size I can no longer make edits without deleting something. I was referring to the section we were just on, but the same goes for both the big section 'New Prime Discovered' and the Reference Desk section. Okay, right, about capitals. Knew that but forgot momentarily.Julzes (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The 'New Prime Discovered' section has now been archived to User talk:PrimeHunter/Archive 4. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Let me know if you have any thoughts about the article I'm proposing here. It's a larger subject than Home primes, so I'm going to spend some time organizing things before I write. Also, tell me if you think an even more ambitious undertaking, History of recreational number theory seems like a doable and worthwhile project.Julzes (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Despite what I said about staying on-topic, I'll relate that I finally (finally!) got a program running that finds record equallers and setters for the number of factor concatenations required to reach a prime. The sequence of those requiring 5 starts 175817, 302023, 365719, 522013, 1377001, 1479837.Julzes (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Just here again to mention that I had a curio accepted relating to Weisstein's 177719-digit prime. It's under '190'. I have a lot of pending submissions, so I'm not quite sure why this one submitted yesterday got fast approval. Probably because 190 got attention for being small and only having one curio on it till mine. I'm probably going to submit a more elaborate curio on the same prime tonight, and then I have one on 89 for tomorrow (first prime whose reversal takes one step to reach home prime, with 3 repetitions also).Julzes (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been putting off the other thing on the 177719-digit, but I submitted on 89, noticed I omitted the word 'prime' at one point immediately after, and then noticed the digits between the 89s in 895040893 when I went to resubmit. I submitted also (under '13') on the locations of first appearances of 23571113 in the digits of pi being the 8157777th and 63766066th digits after the decimal, but I hope I didn't fall for a prank by the site that allowed the search!Julzes (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Jens, I hope you don't mind my asking here, but I'm trying to get higher precision on logarithms in PARI/GP. If you don't have a quick answer, it's not that big a deal; I'm just trying to get the 4th prime in the leading digits of the base-4 representation of 4#### to submit as a curio. Let me know if I should email you instead (or not even ask) in the future.Julzes (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC) As is often the case, I think I came up with an answer on my own right after posting (Binary_logarithm will probably work). I'll simply let you know one way or the other when I know.Julzes (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a \p command in PARI/GP:

? \p 100000 realprecision = 100009 significant digits (100000 digits displayed)
 * PrimeHunter (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Will try that first. It probably saves me some time.Julzes (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

While I'm waiting for that to compute (I used 300-digit precision), I came up with the following (which I'm unfortunately not positive is correct). '338438833 - The large prime factor of the remarkable semiprime 46366120121=floor((44*4+4/4)*log4(log4(log4(log4(4!!!!))))) misses being a palindrome of only two distinct (loop-) digits with product 4! that is also prime on account of a 4 in its 4th digit.'Julzes (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's correct. I also found something which relates to it, though wording it in wouldn't be easy.  33883=prime(prime(prime(prime(3^3)))).  By the way, do you know of any nth prime calculator that goes beyond the n=10^12 of the one at the Prime Pages?  If such exists, I could use that.Julzes (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know such an nth prime calculator. I have computed large nth prime values with the program and method mentioned at http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=13210. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll see if I can do anything with that any time soon. Trying to get things like the 13th iterate of 13.Julzes (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Result is in. 211 base-4 digits. I think I'll see what I get by taking it out to 50000 decimal digits, since that wasn't very demanding. The first three also have prime length in base 4--2, 5, and 103.Julzes (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

My research just resulted in another wild coincidence. 33964183692516877378965462083143336943 is the 314159th prime that is the value of the first 6 digits of pi in some base. Do you want to guess what this curio will immediately follow if it's accepted?Julzes (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Danish Jews
Hi! I created a category called American_people_of_Danish-Jewish_descent and I only added 2 names. Could someone add some for names to that list? Also why not create a category called Danish Jews? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Alexandra Powers
In the Alexandra Powers article I created I found a website that says she is in Scientology. Here's the website: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/a/alexandra-powers.html Should this be used as a reference in the article? Please let me know. Neptunekh2 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Twin Primes
Dear Jens Kruse, I know that the twin primes problem is, for the moment, an unsolved problem. So, I have just published an abstract from an article of the "Journal of Algebra, Number Theory and Applications", that is of recent publication (November 2010). I think that this article would be an help for the page, not something uncorrect. Thanks. Nicola Fragnito — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicola.fragnito (talk • contribs) 12:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reverted again per WP:REDFLAG. You can make a suggestion at Talk:Twin prime but I don't expect it will get support. There are lots of reliable sources saying the infinitude of twin primes is an open problem. Minor journals with poor or no review sometimes accept alleged solutions of famous unsolved problems but Wikipedia requires more. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"Concatenation" and its uses
I'm going to go about the business of disambiguating whether one-element concatenations exist, putting something in relevant places in this article and others. While it's a little bit parallel to the question of whether the empty set exists, there appears to be a split on the issue. From a purely linguistic standpoint, it's apparent you need at least two things to concatenate, the mathematical standard so far has been to start sequences of 'concatenations' with a term before an actual concatenation occurs. The language of the article concatenation, on the other hand, doesn't even mention the mathematical convention, and this is probably really more the fault of those employing it. But both possibilities are 'right', so far as conventions dictate matters. Incidentally, I have a curio that stimulated the question. If you use the model of plain language, then the 11th Smarandache-Wellin number is the first that is non-squarefree and the 1231st is the first divisible by 372.Julzes (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Some things I would like to discuss
1. First of all, I think Larry_King should go under the category: [Category:American_people_of_Belarusian-Jewish_descent] because it says in the article that his parents emigrated from Belarus and they were Jewish. Also I think Peter_Douglas and Eric_Douglas should go under that category as since their father Kirk_Douglas is listed under that category as well. 2. I think it should be noted in the Alexandra_Powers article that her mother is Katharyn_Powers and was a writer for variety of TV series. This article says they are related: http://www.museumstuff.com/learn/topics/Katharyn_Powers Also I think in the Katharyn_Powers article these links should be added: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0584251/ http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Katharyn_Powers http://www.moviefone.com/celebrity/katharyn-powers/2035049/main http://stargate.wikia.com/wiki/Katharyn_Powers Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for fixing the spelling in the title of my MacDonough article! Happy New Year--or should that be hAPPy nEw YeaR?! I'm an idiot. Jeffmatt (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

template error
hello,

please have a look at Template:Infobox Masters of Russian Animation. Why are the colors not displayed? And what is the "Template loop detected: Template:Documentation"? Please clean it up if you can. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Texas Open
I think I will propose a deletion for this article, per WP:CHRYSTAL. What do you think?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The 2011 WTA Tour has already started and one of the official calendars http://www.wtatour.com/page/Calendar lists it on the 2011 Tour. Google's cache on currently shows it wasn't listed 1 January.  Other official calendars omit it but I would expect http://www.wtatour.com/page/Calendar to be the most up to date so I currently oppose deletion. If it was only on a preliminary 2012 calendar then I would support. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

non-displayed initial characters
That was what I though was happening--that there were some mystery characters in this. I did export to an external text editor and I can't see anything. How do I know something like this is happening (and where)? Trackinfo (talk) 06:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I used the Notepad (software) in my Windows Vista as the first try and Notepad immediately displayed dots at the characters. I'm not an expert on special characters and don't know the best solution in general. I copy-pasted to http://rishida.net/tools/conversion/ to find that the character was called U+2028 LINE SEPARATOR. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Circular primes
I stumbled upon your comment on Talk:List of prime numbers. In the article Circular prime I omitted all but the smallest member of each circle for the listing there. I think the definition of a circular prime should perhaps be changed to make clear that no prime number (except the repunits) can be a circular prime by itself. For example the description in List of prime numbers says "A circular prime number is a number that remains prime on any cyclic rotation of its digits.". This somehow could give the reader the false impression that a prime number after one cyclic rotation still is the same number as before the rotation (at leat one could read it that way), while in fact the rotation produces an entirely new number. Maybe we should change the articles to talk about groups of numbers (the circles) instead of single numbers to make that clearer. I would be glad to hear what you think. Regards. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen sources which say a circular prime is a group or set of numbers and I don't think we should say so without a source. I have only seen sources which say it is a prime number and sometimes omit to list the rotations. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This source (page 28 of the book / page 47 of the digital document) talks about a prime and "all the cyclic permutations of its digits". It also omits all rotations of the digits except for the smallest number. And here (see page 70) the author talks about prime numbers "that remain prime on any cyclic rotation of its (their) digits". These are the two most reputable sources I found and each of them uses one of the two possible listings. If you can show me that one of those two listings is used more extensively by reliable sources, I would be happy, but right now I am uncertain what to do.Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't do a complete job fixing that, Jens. Know anything about heuristic work on the likelihood of there being more non-repunits?  I suspect there are, but I haven't yet looked at the question closely enough.  For each length n, there are 4n individual candidates (just by the digit restriction) each of heuristic probability of being prime around 2.5/(n*log(10)), but it's a bit tricky to get an estimate out of this for an entire circle.  It shouldn't be too daunting, though.  Note that if you have no idea or if it's already there somewhere in the references (I'll be checking), feel free to ignore this.Julzes (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I see David Wilson addressed this (not very well (a circle of n-digit primes can have a number between the repunit 1 and the general case n members), but probably well enough) on De Geest's site.  I couldn't get the book pages of the other 2 references, by the way.  I don't know if it's because I'm using this cellphone or for some reason that affects everyone, but you may want to take a look at whether those citations are usable.Julzes (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just realized my parenthetical about number of members of a circle only applies if it's a circle that definitely includes composites.Julzes (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The book sources work for me. I agree with Wilson there are probably no more non-repunit circular primes. I guess you figured out the factorization patterns like 137137137 = 137×1001001. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree too. Yes, just a second thought revealed I would be dealing with such if I were considering cases where the circle had an intermediate number of members.  Had a 16-digit curio (the large prime factor of the number of primes between M31 and M61) accepted yesterday, by the way.  Plus, Loungrides just had one accepted on 8831 that I never got around to verifying (reverse concatenation of odd primes) and did not submit because of this.Julzes (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Patrick DeGeest has updated his site. I was curious about what was said in that white box and after I emailed him he now seems to agree that the permutable primes are a subset of the circular primes and not vice versa (as was said in that box before). Thus the information on his site now backs up what is said in our article about the relationship between those two classes of primes. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies and guidelines
What are you anyway, a walking Wikipedia encyclopedia? I am constantly amazed at how many policies and guidelines you know and cite. Astounding ... and helpful, too. (Most recently, I am referring to your citation to WP:BYPASS at the Help forum.) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I often link WP:BYPASS at help pages. In many other cases I search for a relevant page after seeing a question. If I don't know where it is then I often have an idea how to find it if it exists. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your help me :).-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for Assistance
Dear Jens,

A few minutes ago you responded to my query about why I am not getting the confirming email when I change my profile. However, being told that it works for you does not help make it work for me, but it does make it appear the question was answered. I've deleted the answer in hopes that someone will provide me an answer that solves the problem.

Do you have any idea why Wikipedia automatic emails do not always get to the recipient? For what it is worth, I use a forwarding email system, so when I change my ISP (or in the event my gmail address gets hijacked), it does not mean I have to change all the places where I have registered an email. Thus cs at aroha dot net goes to my current ISP in box and to my gmail account. When I send a test email to that address it arrives within seconds so I know the Internet part is working.

Is there a bug or hole in Wikipedia that causes this failure? Is there another way I can get the email to be authenticated?

Is there an expert I can email who can solve this?

Thanks, CS — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClassicalScholar (talk • contribs) 22:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Asking assistance (if possible) with Fermi paradox
I suspect you don't have the time or inclination, but I was wondering if you could take a look at what I have tried to do today to improve a recently added section to this article (one I would rather see vanish) and the reaction I got. I tried to justify some use of simple logic for a couple of sentences as WP:OR, but the expected reversions were performed once by one person and twice by another. If you do happen to take a look at what I attempted to submit and agree partially with it, any suggestion would be appreciated.Julzes (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't support your addition. I agree with others that it is original research. Wikipedia editors should not make their own arguments against a published paper. I also disagree with your agument in the context of Guth's work - this doesn't mean that I think he gives a good argument for the Fermi paradox but if his premises are accepted then I think your argument fails. The problem, if we accept the rapidly increasing number of universes, is that a universe chosen at random in the future among all universes in existence at that time with intelligent life would be far less likely to be our universe than a universe chosen at random now. Another disscussion is whether it makes sense to view us as a randomly selected universe when it's our universe and the only one we know. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thanks.  The problem I see is that we should look at ourselves as a randomly selected advanced lifeform, not our universe as a randomly selected universe.  The distribution of lifeforms over universes makes the selection of our universe non-uniform.  Anyway, I don't think Guth's notion belongs in the article, needlessly muddling an already muddled subject, and I thought what I said was a simple enough addition for readers to use as grounds for dismissing the topic.Julzes (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request
Hi PrimeHunter,

I figure it's simpler to ask this of you than to explain the issue to another admin using editprotected. Could you remove the line "You might consider adding this page to your watchlist." from the edit notice at Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Requests for feedback? Unless, of course, you think a change in the system could be imminent. I already removed it from the talkheader.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 01:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The /Group/ in Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Requests for feedback makes it display when editing subpages like Requests for feedback/2011 February 9. Maybe (I'm not sure) the magic word could be used to modify the watch link to watch the subpage being edited. If that works then wouldn't it be better? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That would indeed be vastly better, though I'm afraid I've no idea how to implement it. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * seems to have worked fine. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Civility
Dear PrimeHunter:

With regard to your recent Help Desk comment, "I guess we would still be in the dark ages without those clever Americans", may I politely remind you of the Wikipedia Civility Policy, which specifically mentions derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities? While likely made in jest, such comments are not in keeping with Wikipedia's goals of respect and a pleasant editing environment. I believe the preceding response from Rehevkor was the appropriate one, which assumed good faith by the editor.

Respectfully, RadioBroadcast (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have removed the comment. It wasn't meant to appear derogative or imply anything about intelligence. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry PrimeHunter, I ought to have messaged you myself rather than responding as I did. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Jens, it just seems like a sensible sarcastic--but accurately so--statement on historical knowledge, but I'm reading out of context. Ask here if you'd like me to ask below for an assist in improving the article on Brian May.  You're not the only person to ask, but you might be far and near enough.  So it's not a request, but rather a suggestion or a question on your time and interest.  And never mind about national symbolism that I asked.Julzes (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not interested in working on Brian May. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been admonished by this "administrator" who clearly does NOT read or FOLLOW the rules himself. He is only one on my WatchList of corrupt administrators and editors. Wikipedia has to root out these people and punish them when they act overbearingly and inaccurately: They have an example to set. PeterHarlington (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Goldbach's Conjecture Article
Hi Jens, Thank for your interesting response to my questions at the help desk. After some thought provoking back and forth with Meni_Rosenfeld, I have some ideas about improving wikipedia's Goldbach's Conjecture article by initiating a new section, 'Goldbach Partition'.

Hi Jens, I just deleted most of my last post here because I now realize the Quixotic nature of my little quest. Sorry, my skull can be so thick sometimes and it amazes me. Thank you again for your time and consideration. --Mathup (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I guess it's just as well that I had not gotten around to replying. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Unable to edit
Thanks for your comment at Help which conversation was archived while I went away for the weekend. When connected directly, I have "View source" tabs instead of "Edit." I did obtain my IP address as you suggest. It also said that my IP (and indirectly, IP range) is not blocked. I am not sure at this point even where to go to seek resolution. Matchups 03:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Does the "Rangeblock finder" and "Global blocks" links at the bottom of Special:Mycontributions when you are logged out show nothing? Will you reveal the IP address in an email to me? I will not tell it to anybody else. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the offer. The problem seems to have resolved itself.  I'll get back to you if it happens again. Matchups 02:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hallmark
Thanks for the link. I'll try it and let you know how it goes. GiantTiger001 (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I did it!! Thanks for all of your help!! I just can't see to get an image for the movie, but that's not a big deal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_of_the_Class_(film) GiantTiger001 (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me out. I couldn't get the image for the poster to work, but it's there now, which is the important thing. :o) GiantTiger001 (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

thanks

 * Thanks for flagging it up. Best wishes Span (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And more thanks for the bit on the scam publisher in Mauritius. Also, I thought your comment about the dark ages was true. ;)  Keep up the good work. Oldtaxguy (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

OEIS links in prime number articles
Hi, I thought I drop a quick question that bothers me a bit. Many of the number related articles (those about classes of numbers) include links to entries in OEIS. I was wondering which Wiki-Guideline permits this. WP:ELPOINTS#2 says "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article". I also don't see MOS:LEAD specifically allowing it in the lead section. Thus the OEIS links in the articles about classes of prime numbers don't seem to comply with Wikipedias guidelines. So shouldn't all those OEIS links just be moved to the external links section (or maybe into the infobox template, if present in the article)? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The OEIS links in the body are nearly always made with OEIS or OEIS2C. These templates were made before I became editor and I don't know whether the external link in the body has been discussed. I personally like it so I haven't seen reason to bring it up although I have also thought it is unusual for Wikipedia. I think OEIS links serve 3 goals: 1) A reference to the first terms of the sequence (and possibly the definition) which are usually given in the article. 2) An external link to additional information. 3) Simply saying what the OEIS number is as relevant information in itself (could be done without linking it). Many articles link multiple OEIS sequences (List of prime numbers may hold the record) and for reference purposes it would be inconvenient to merely list them together in a common external links section. They should be inline references but it would of course be possible to only have the external link in a reference section. However, I think the OEIS number is often worth mentioning in the body and then it's a short way to conveniently link on it. Do you personally dislike the OEIS links in the body or are you only concerned because they may be against normal guidelines? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally I am fine with with having the OEIS links in the body of the article. I think often a quick reference to a sequence that is not the topic of the article (for example OEIS link to Leyland primes in the article Leyland number) is useful, especially since OEIS is a site that loads quickly and can be nicely opened in a second tab for comparison with the wiki article. However I simply thought this would be against some Wiki guidelines and this is also the reason, why I started Template:Infobox integer sequence. My idea was for most sequences (especially classes of prime numbers, since I mainly edit those) to have some defining facts packed together in a compact way (what essentially is the main purpose of an infobox anyway). And the OEIS link seemed to me like the equivalent of a "homepage" for the sequence, like we have the company website in Template:Infobox company. Do you think the integer sequence info box templates should be removed from the articles? Although I have added this template to some articles, it doesn't seem to experience overwhelming usage. Personally if there were some kind of consensus to remove the template, that would be ok for me. Especially, it doesn't contain any parameters that cannot also be placed easily in the lead section or the body of the article. I wouldn't mind listing the template for WP:TFD. I don't know if there is a rule that defines how intensively a template must be used in order to be keepworthy. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If there is an infobox then I think it should contain an OEIS link even though an integer sequence cannot have an official website like a person or organization. But I wouldn't mind duplicating the link in the body. I think Template:Infobox integer sequence has too few fields. Looking out at an infobox is a form of distraction that should give more content to be worth it. Some possible optional fields: formula (a simple expression when known), first terms, conjectured size (for example finite/infinite), named after (a wikilinked name, often not the author), main property (subjective when to use this). Image fields are also popular in infoboxes although it may often be hard to find a sensible image for an integer sequence. There is no rule about deleting rarely used templates if the rare uses are considered appropriate without a good alternative. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for all your input. I will consider expanding the template with additional parameters. Your proposals for additional fields are very good. Regarding the image, I already thought about this. Someone at the Mathematics Reference Desk pointed me to OEIS, which provides a visualization of each sequence listed there using barcharts and scatterplots. Maybe I will eventually succeed in making some image of additional (or hopefully even better) quality. Again thanks, appreciate your help very much. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Another field idea I have personally searched for many integer sequences (especially primes): Largest known (give the number of digits if there is no short formula, omit field if there is a known way to generate arbitrarily large numbers). By the way, I think the display for OEIS should only be "OEIS index" and not "OEIS index and link". PrimeHunter (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I expanded the template with the addtitional parameters and also changed the display for OEIS as you suggested. It now contains a parameter to list the person/subject/object the sequence is named after. I also added optional parameters to list a generating formula, the first terms and the largest known term of the sequence. The display for the OEIS parameter is now "OEIS index" instead of "OEIS index and link". Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC) (An example in action can be found in the article Wieferich prime) Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks good. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Mersenne primes M48 and M49
A user keeps adding M48 and M49 to the article Mersenne prime. They are also listed in OEIS. How much is OEIS a reliable source in that point? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They are not reliable enough for an alleged world record submitted the same day by the alleged discoverer. See my latest reversion. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Musatov?
Hi Jens. I've been following the embryonic edit war over the Mersenne prime article. To your credit, you have been assuming good faith with great care, but in view of the OEIS history wouldn't you say that we have yet another sock puppet of ? Favonian (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, makes it obvious. I'm involved and don't work with blocks. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing like a signed confession. I have blocked the account indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! And additional help?
Hi Jens - Thanks for providing feedback to my request with the Nefsis and Loring Ward page and making the comment here User talk:JzG. Wondering if you have any best practices you can offer up since I still feel that the Loring Ward page was taken down too early, as you stated, only after a few months. I've edited quite a few Wikipedia pages that are based on my interests, but haven't had one taken down so would appreciate any insight/help that you would recommend on getting it re-posted since I am not a Wiki admin. Karebear 1022 (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If you think the company satisfies Notability (organizations and companies) and you want to put in work to demonstrate this with independent reliable sources then you can try asking JzG for a userfication to a subpage of your account. Then you could improve the article before asking for a review of whether it has become suitable for a move to the encyclopedia. I suspect you have a conflict of interest and shouldn't place it back in the encyclopedia yourself. See also FAQ/Organizations. I suggest you include mention of things the company is known for but may not want to advertise on its website such as the problems a few years ago with a takeover of the company. Then the article will look less promotional. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems like JzG is just trolling pages since he took down yet another page that I added in -- again, this had a bunch of third party references and also had edits from other Wiki users. I entered a formal RfM request here if you'd like to add to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/REPLACE_THIS_TEXT_WITH_ARTICLE_NAME Karebear 1022 (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It was misnamed, moved to Requests for mediation/Loring Ward and rejected. If you don't want to ask JzG for userfication then you can also try Deletion review. See also Why was my page deleted? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Alphabetizing
You answered the question that I posted at the help desk, and raised a question yourself. I want to make sure you get around to reading my answer. I'm not sure how to link, so I'll just try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Category_page_alphabetizing--did_it_change.3F_Permanent.3F 140.147.236.194 (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Duke Ellington
Mea culpa; I misread his obit at http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=FB0F13FC3E5E1A7493CAAB178ED85F408785F9 and added him to the wrong cemetery back in December. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That's OK. I'm not interested in him but responded to New contributors' help page/questions. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Botswana LGBT-related films
1. I think The_No._1_Ladies'_Detective_Agency_(TV_series) should go under the category Botswana LGBT-related films since the pliot was a made for tv film and there is a gay character in the series and it also should go under Botswana-LGBT-related television programmes. Please say your opinion about this matter. 2. Does Wikipedia have the right to talk about celebrities personal lives? Does Wikipedia have the right to talk about celebrities personal lives? It seems that Wikipedia has become a gossip blog or something. It talk about people's personal live and half of it might not even be true. Is that what an encyclopedia is suppose to do? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You will have seen this
Help_desk - Kittybrewster  &#9742;  16:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Placement of w/o
Isn't the loser a "walkover" as such? Aren't you "walking over" the loser? Or I just being crazy? It wouldn't be the first time. To be honest, it seems natural to me to put them in the loser slot because of the above reasons and because of the fact that the reader's eyes get a full view of the entire match and aren't draw just to the winner, if that makes sense. No, it isn't based on any regulation, I think I've just had edit mania because of the amount of errors in tennis pages - such as the reversal of names for Chinese players, and the fact that ALT is spelt with capital letters when it isn't in the Draw Key. Things like this just make me angry. Kapitan110295 (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, now I'm here talking to another tennis editor, could someone please tell me what is wrong with the Top 10 Australian female singles tennis player templates, and why we're unable to edit them. Is it just me that gets a redirect page when I try to edit them? Because unupdated templates also get me angry. Kapitan110295 (talk) 04:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously I am just weird then. Thanks for the info, I'll be fixing things later. Kapitan110295 (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Thanks, I wasn't sure how to deal with those. I will tag it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

My preferences
Saw your reply on the Help Desk where you linked to a tab on Special:Preferences. I did not realize you could do that. Thought it was neat, so I created myprefs. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 17:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice. It wasn't always possible. At some time I noticed the tabs had gotten a section link and tried whether it worked as a url without having to click the tab. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Figured. I think I looked at this ages ago and couldn't see a way to link a tab. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 01:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI, if you don't know already
Hi, saw this and thought you might be interested. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I reverted it. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, okay. I thought it was kinda funny.  --CliffC (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles about classes of prime numbers
I would like to hear your opinion on what to do with short articles about classes of prime numbers. While some of the articles wikilinked from List of prime numbers are quite well developed (like for example the articles Mersenne prime, Wieferich prime or Wolstenholme prime), others are rather short (like Circular prime, Dihedral prime, Emirp or Isolated prime). I think that some of the shorter articles might be impossible to expand further (see also WP:HD). Do you think it would be a good idea to merge the shorter articles into List of prime numbers? My main concern with that would be that List of prime numbers is already rather long, and merging the content of the shorter articles into the list would result in it becoming even longer and maybe more difficult to handle or maintain. Another possibility would be to merge the content of the shorter articles into List of prime numbers and then split that article into a number of shorter sub-articles (maybe ordered alphabetically like List of prime numbers A-H, List of prime numbers I-P and List of prime numbers Q-Z or something similar). It should also be considered how the article CRGreathouse has begun drafting in his userspace at User:CRGreathouse/Tables of special primes fits into this. Should this be considered at all or should it simply be kept the way it is? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think List of prime numbers is a good merge target. As you say, it's already long. I think it would be annoying to use if it was split alphabetically. Readers would be unable to easily compare the prime lists and they may be looking for prime forms without knowing what they are called. The prime forms with short articles tend to be the forms with least notability. I don't think they should be bundled together and dominate List of prime numbers without having much in common other than having little information. If more relevant merge targets can be found for some individual articles then it would be another matter. After discussion at Talk:Star number I merged 9 short "x prime" articles into the corresponding "x number" article. Isolated prime should be merged into twin prime. I think Circular prime, Dihedral prime and Emirp are OK by themselves. If they should be merged with something then Circular prime, Emirp and Permutable prime might be merged together, and Dihedral prime together with Strobogrammatic prime. I don't think User:CRGreathouse/Tables of special primes is relevant to the discussion of what to do with short prime articles. The table form seems unsuited as a merge target. It's also 3 years old and I'm not sure when CRGreathouse will consider it ready. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Fictional characters by power
1. Can Fictional characters by power be created again? I think it's relevant. 2. Should The_No._1_Ladies'_Detective_Agency_(TV_series) be listed in List_of_dramatic_television_series_with_LGBT_characters because BK a main character is gay: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ladies/characters/bk.shtml Neptunekh2 (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See user's talkpage - she has asked same question in several places. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Holly_Marie_Combs
There is a few things I would like add in Holly_Marie_Combs article. According to tv tome, Holly's mother, has worked as an actress and a singer. Her stepfather is a musician. Mother and daughter lived near the beach in San Diego until Holly was eight. and According to this website: http://hollymcombspiperhalliwell.webs.com/hollysfunfactsquotes.htm She was a vegetarian for seven years. Can that be added in her article? And according to NNDB and IMDB Eli Wallach is Polish Jewish descent. And can you tell User:Nymf to stop deleting my edits? He/she is so annoying! Neptunekh2 (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have answered this at the help desk, this editor appears to be particularly disruptive in a non-overt way and just ignores any warnings/recommendations that she is given.  Captain Screebo Parley! 18:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Isolated prime
An article that you have been involved in editing, Isolated prime, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I closed the discussion and performed the merger. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Prime number theorem
I was wondering if I could get you to check the recent edits to Prime number theorem for correctness.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I only looked at the removal of the exponent in . It looks right to me considering log(x−1) = −log(x), and the summation has a minus in front where the exponent is removed. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I was actually referring to (hoping not to bias you by its explicit mention, but so much for that!). CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Main Page history
I thought you might be interested in Main Page history. I came across your archives while writing it - what a good idea! Fences &amp;  Windows  14:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

About Aleksandra Wozniak
You think see also sections are not for similar names, but I don't agree. Do you know they are close friend now? Do you know they are Polish descent? So, I think she has a relatioship for Caroline Wozniacki. If you don't agree, please give me a response. Pierce (talk) 10:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The hatnote at the top takes care of the risk of name confusion. See also sections are not for that. I know they are both of Polish descent but not related as far as I know. Wozniacki has many friends on the WTA Tour. I haven't seen Wozniak mentioned as one of the closest friends. The article already has 5 other links to Wozniacki. WP:SEEALSO says: Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section. I see no justification for a see also link. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

French Open
The reason I changed the link to a 'see also' is that the ITN update for the women's singles title is located in the main 2011 French Open article, and that is currently linked from the main page. Having lots of articles with no content in them may be consensus, but frankly it seems pretty silly to me if the articles aren't going to ever turn into anything worthwhile - beyond a list of results. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess you saw my "draw" versus "tables" summary. A see also to "draw" during the ITN run is OK to me. Many sports have hundreds or thousands of result pages. My limit was Articles for deletion/2011 ASB Classic – Singles Qualifying where I said delete to similar articles for the qualifying tournaments for far smaller tournaments (outside the top-25 of the year). It closed as no consensus. A singles main tournament draw for a Grand Slam (the top-4 events of the year) will never get consensus for deletion, and I would oppose deletion. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks :). I think the content those articles contain is valuable, but the prose content is generally highly limited, and calling them 'draw' sounds better in general as then some prose might well be written about these events on the main article. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Dimensionality of Organic.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dimensionality of Organic.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

RE:User warning templates
Thanks for the information!-- GoldenGlory84 (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Courcelles 02:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Wimbledon‎ consecutive streak
Thanks. Your way looks much better and has the added benefit of hitting the would-be editor in the face in edit-view. I have no idea why this should be a problem, but it is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

READ IT
A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 04:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Roger Federer in 2009 has now become 2009 Roger Federer tennis season
I just wanted to alert you to this change because I believe that this has made any attempt to delete articles of this sort null-and-void. I just want to hear from you on the matter.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think the names change the situation. I still support the articles and others can still oppose them. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

number
You have 2086th place in most edits (20737). Nice! Probably changed by the time you read this. Here:  A   user who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010.  22:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Urban legends
Hey: I how do you think urban legends are started? by someone making something up and telling people about it. Imagine life without being able to reference the various tall tales you hear when you grow up? i simple was conducting a social experiment to see if it was indeed possible to creat my own legend, and have it become a widespread phenomenon. Thank you, Prime Hunter, for crushing imagination and creativity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hridindu (talk • contribs) 01:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. Imagination doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Researched verifiable articles belong in Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia and not a work of fiction. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal
 Rcsprinter  (talk)  15:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

AfD process question
Thank you for your assistance with my AfD snafu earlier. As you seem to know the process of requesting deletions, I wonder whether you could help me understand another aspect. The page I listed for deletion was a sub-sub page of an article. It has further sub-pages (sub-sub-sub pages of the main article). If the page I requested to be deleted disappears, what happens to its children? Do they become orphan articles, or are they deleted along with their parent (sounds awful when put that way, don't it)? Regards, Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   06:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Articles don't have a tree structure. "Parent articles" and "subarticles" are informal names, even if Main is used. Articles are independent and one deletion does not cause other deletions. See WP:BUNDLE if you want to nominate multiple related articles for deletion. See WP:Orphan for the meaning of orphan in Wikipedia. It is not about articles with no "parent". PrimeHunter (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Your biased judgements on the HelpDesk
So you say I have made a threatening statement? So what? You IGNORED the editor who acted outside of the wikipedia guidelines himself and completely let him off the hook as far as your bias is concerned.

Not only that you accuse me of not understanding how wikipedia works and throw away my legitimate question completely. That also is NOT GOOD FAITH AT ALL. You should be ashamed of your actions, buddy. I will reinstate my original question at the help desk and will report you for your behaviour also if you continue your bias. Good day and expect to see me again, "administrator". PeterHarlington (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Your help desk question is still there so I'm not sure what you mean by reinstate it. The only removed part is the July 27 heading of a July 26 section (UTC). All times on discussion pages are UTC and it will confuse a lot of users (and the automated date based archiving bot) if you reinstate a July 27 heading before other sections from July 26. The date headings are also shown in the table of contents at the top which should be chronological. If I had not removed the date heading then somebody else would have done it. See User pages regarding your user page and take a look at Civility. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

External media
Hi PrimeHunter. Many thanks for your prompt advice to me at WP:EAR about External media. That was exactly the information I needed. I have now made use of the external media template in a new article I am developing. See my diff. Cheers! Dolphin ( t ) 00:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

WP Tennis in the Signpost
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Tennis for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles about numbers
Hi, I haven't done much work on articles about single numbers, as I am mainly interested in specific types of numbers (mostly primes) and I am not sure if you are really interested in them. I noticed that a lot of number pages are redirects. The pages 1002 (number) – 1010 (number) all redirect to 1000 (number). I noticed that while these numbers are mentioned in that article, most of the information given there seems to be trivia or of questionable notability. For example the only property of 1005, 1010 or 1014 mentioned there is that they are zeros of the Mertens function. I question how notable that fact is. Another example is 1060 which has only said about it being the sum of the first 25 primes. While I think this information is interesting, without any sources I regard such a claim as trivia. I am interested in your opinion about what should happen with such articles. I ask you because I don't know how good the chances are to receive a reply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers (after all, the project has 20 participants, of which three have been blocked as socks and two more have not edited since 2004 and 2006 respectively).

The only possible idea I have at the moment would be instead of targeting the number redirects at these lists instead to target them at the topic they are most notable for (for example, redirect 1005 to Mertens function).

Please let me know if you have an idea on what to do with these articles. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Many number articles are poor but I don't want to spend a lot of time on it. I think most of the properties in 1000 (number) are worth mentioning there. It doesn't make the number notable, but a one-line mention in a list seems OK to me for a property of limited notability. Small numbers have many properties. A number shouldn't redirect to a property just because it's the only one we currently mention. And being a Mertens function zero is not a defining characterisitic of a number. Besides, Mertens function stops the list of zeroes at 254, but if it continued to 1005 then a redirect of 1005 (number) would still be inappropriate. Most mathematical properties of numbers in Wikipedia can be sourced to OEIS if requested, for example oeis:A007504 or oeis:A028442, but sources are rarely requested for these things. If we only mention one property of a number then I don't see it as a problem like long trivia sections in articles. If you think 1000 (number) has too little info on a number to justify a redirect then you could nominate the redirect for deletion at WP:RFD, but some discussions like Articles for deletion/1002 (number) have shown support for the redirects. Many number redirects started out as articles with very little content, for example 1005 and 1060 which were redirected without a discussion. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Astray
Template:Astray has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Note of appreciation
PrimeHunter, I have noticed your contributions on the Help Desk and have to say, you are one of the most dedicated and sincere contributors to the Help Desk. My personal appreciation for the same. Thanks.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  04:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you! PrimeHunter (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I second that and I also appreciate your contributions to the help desk. You already helped me a number of times there and a countless number of other users, too. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's nice to hear my help is appreciated. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

deleting history
" Hi,My daughter was messing around on wikipedia and entered our home address as a joke (on the wiki entry for Red Panda) at around 20:52 today (July 19, 2011). It was deleted by someone else right away, but our address still shows up on the 'view history' tab of the Red Panda page. Is there anyway that I can delete that 'history' entry? It's a big privacy breech - believe me my daughter WILL NOT be making that mistake again. Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.213.153.185 (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)"

I have a very similar problem, but I don't find an answer how to solve it. Can anybody help ? Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomsarg (talk • contribs) 17:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you can have the admins permanently delete something from the history at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Hope that helps. Coolug (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarification for other editors, Lomsarg quoted an old post by an IP whose situation was fixed long ago. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

When I applied to English Wikipedia oversight with the problem, I received the following reply: "No one has the oversight tool on the Lithuanian Wikipedia. This User:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/lt/wiki/Naudotojas:Dirgela

is an active bureaucrat who May Be Able to help you.

Sincerely,

Fred Bauder, "So, I found p.Dirgelą (see User talk: Dirgėla / Naudotojo aptarimas:Dirgela ), but there I see no real possibility of appeal. Maybe you can recommend some solution? Thank you in advance. Lomsarg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomsarg (talk • contribs) 12:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know Lithuanian. User:Dirgela mentions an email address you can try but I don't know whether it's still valid. The user is inactive at the English Wikipedia and may not see messages at User talk:Dirgela. The user can be contacted at http://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naudotojo_aptarimas:Dirgela with the "Pridėti temą" tab, but note that this and other talk pages can be seen by everybody. Oh, I now see you have already posted there. You could add what it's about without revealing private information. A reply could come there or at lt:Naudotojo aptarimas:Lomsarg. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I still wait for help ... Lomsarg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomsarg (talk • contribs) 16:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Dirgela on his userpage, where it says "User:dirgela is working mainly on Lithuanian Wikipedia, main interests in history, political science and other social sciences.." lists several means of contact. Perhaps you could try one of those? I don't know if this contact data is still valid and if you will receive a reply from him though. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia languages can have different policies on some matters. At the English Wikipedia you said it was a very similar problem to somebody who wrote from an IP address to say their daughter wrote their home address. They didn't request the IP address removed. According to a Google translation of your posts to the Lithuanian Wikipedia it sounds like your problem is that you edited without logging in so your IP address is in the page history. That is not very similar. It is a deliberate part of the software that the IP address is shown in the page history when you don't log in. Every day thousands of users deliberately edit like that. Revealing a home address should allow oversight at all Wikipedia languages per meta:Oversight. The English Wikipedia also specifically allows oversight of IP addresses per Oversight, but other languages may not do that. I don't know the policies of the Lithuanian Wikipedia. And I only have an administrator account at the English Wikipedia so I don't have the ability to remove something from a page history at other languages.

- It is not good that situation isn't the same in Wikipedia everywhere. I hope there are not so many stupid people who have the same problem as I do and that it is not a very big burden for aministrators.

PrimeHunter (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Thank you very much for your efforts. I found this answer : "She has written me an email with request to delete history entries, but did not specify what needs to be deleted and why. When she will provide me those details I will certainly help to solve these issues.--Dirgela 11:29, 4 rugsėjo 2011 (EEST) "/ I did send an email with all details now. Thank you for your time and hope that this problem will be fixed soon. Lomsarg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomsarg (talk • contribs) 11:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC) I was denied any help by Lithuanian admin. Dirgela. Very sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomsarg (talk • contribs) 16:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As mentioned, I don't know the policies of the Lithuanian Wikipedia. It appears from your communications that privacy concerns is not considered sufficient reason to remove IP addresses from page histories. I'm unable to help with that. If you think all Wikipedia languages and other Wikimedia projects should allow such IP removals then the place to suggest it would be meta:Talk:Oversight. I see the issue was mentioned in an archived discussion at meta:Talk:Oversight/Archives/2010 but the policy was not amended. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to comment
Hi, I would appreciate if you could share your view at Talk:Wilson prime. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The Natural (film)
I am having a problem that I hope that you can help me with. I have been editing on the above mentioned article in the section regarding the soundtrack that the "Tri Star" logo appears on the label of the soundtrack album, but an editor named RepublicanJacobite keeps undoing the edit. I think that is is important that this should be on the article in that particular section, but the aforementioned editor doesn't seem to think so and now asks for a source. What source could I use to prove that the logo does appear on the label of the soundtrack album and how should I put it in the article? I know this to be true because I happen to have this soundtrack album in my collection of vinyl records and the "Tri Star" logo actually appears on the label. I can actually see it with my own eyes.

Please help here. Thanks in advance for anything that you can advise or provide. Frschoonover (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see the significance of including this information in the article. If no sources bother to mention it then it's a further sign that it's not significant. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

User:PrimeHunter/Alphascript Publishing sells free articles as expensive books
Have you considered merging it with VDM Publishing? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 00:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It was never meant as an encyclopedic article and it contains original research. I don't think it would be suited for merging to mainspace. My original idea was to make a page containing all the "book" titles so it could be found by potential buyers using a search engine like Google to seek information. I dropped that goal when I saw they quickly made tens of thousands of titles. The original list was compiled partially by hand. A bot would soon have been required to keep up. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

List of numbers
I guess I should have taken a look at -yllion before making this edit. I will try to take more care in the future instead of making edits to pages about subjects I am not familiar with (such as this terminology proposal). Thanks for changing it back. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season
I created this article and some admin SchuminWeb deleted it, Novak Djokovic now has won three slams in a calendar year as like 2004 Roger Federer tennis season, 2006 Roger Federer tennis season, 2007 Roger Federer tennis season, and 2010 Rafael Nadal tennis season. This is entirely unfair that Djokovic has be unduly censored on here and the other two have not. I want to know what should we do in order to get this article to stay put, and not get deleted! I think if Djokovic's in unallowable it should be the same for all of Federer's and Nadal's.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This is what I created Sandboxed 2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season —Preceding undated comment added 18:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC).


 * I have posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Primes navbox
Have you considered moving User:PrimeHunter/Prime classes into mainspace? There is an article I hope can be brought to GA status in the near future and I think this navbox would be a good addition to the article. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I couldn't decide on some things last year and didn't come back to it but I will look at it within a few days. If you think it's about ready then it's OK if you move and edit it. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I moved the navbox into template namespace. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. Sorry I didn't get back to you on this. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

User:The Gypsy Vagabond Man/2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season
Go look at it and tell me what you think of it now?The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 09:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season
I think that I resolved many of the delete votes in the previous AfD, which is why I recreated it with way more content. I want you to go look it over and edit what you think needs an editing.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Marian Spencer
Thank you for removing the stub category from my article regarding Marian Spencer. Thank you for posting to Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/questions#Marian Spencer. Your help is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, User Revilos1 Revilos1 (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Help! (never mind)
I messed something up.

As part of cleanup, I deleted Tinh Gia District. However, I apparently did it twice, and ended up with a double redirect.

If I look at the deletion log, I can see the original article, but I can't seem to restore the stub about the district, I keep restoring the redirect. If you can help me, I'd like to figure out what I should have done – I see that there is a capability to retore all of the history except recetn edits, and I thought that would do the trick, but ither I misunderstand how to do it, or that isn't the right way to fix it.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A helpful TPS fixed it for me. -- SPhilbrick  T  15:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

bugzilla 27978
Thanks for reopening bugzilla:27978. Unfortunately, the bug report has only drawn this reponse from one Bawolff:


 * Sounds like yet another squid caches are sometimes not being purged properly issue. (If it was a squid caching issue, it would probably only appear on pages recently unprotected, and only for anon users (It probably wouldn't appear for people who recently logged out either. Basically only appear if you do not have any cookies from wikipedia).


 * It'd be helpful to have more specific examples of pages in which this issue appears.

There are lots of examples in the bug report already, but anonymous users don't have permission to post new ones to bugzilla! Could you post a note there pointing this out, please?

Anyway, the first thing I looked at when I encountered the bug, before posting to VP/T (from a different IP address), was whether the article I was then looking at had recently changed its protected status. It had not. Therefore this does not seem to be a caching issue. Could you mention this in the posting as well, please?

Please do not reply to this IP address's talk page. --70.48.228.46 (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't need and cannot use a Wikipedia account to post to bugzilla, but you need a bugzilla account which must publicly mention an email address in your bugzilla posts. Comparison of webmail providers mentions some free services where you can easily create an email account and just abandon it later. Do you have a recent example of a page name affected by the bug? I'm nearly always logged in and it appears to only affect logged out users so I don't discover examples on my own. MediaWiki 1.18 was introduced in the English Wikipedia on October 5. I haven't heard of a fix for this bug in 1.18 but an example since then would be good to show the bug is still there. If you post an example to me then I can post it to bugzilla. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I see. I haven't had a recent example.  If it happens again in the near future, I'll post something here.  --208.76.104.133 (talk) 03:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC) (same person)

"Title displays in a weird way"
Thank you for taking the time to answer my message. I replied on my user talk page. --Urzică (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Sir Armbrust Talk to me  Contribs  11:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments
I would love it if you could share comments on my updated system of user talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsona (talk • contribs) 14:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Logged out
I was logged in. Then a tag informed me that the system has lost my data information. Some hours after I saw the tag I was logged out. When I tried to log in again, I saw that my name and my code were saved in the system, I couldn't use them, but I was logged out. User talk:Αλεξανδράκης,23/10,15:53.


 * It's common to get an error message about lost data or something like that when you try to preview or save an edit. This is unrelated to login problems. It's also common that a user loses their login during a session and then have to log in again. Help:Logging in has some tips about this. Are you saying that you are no longer able to log in again? If you get an error message when you try to log in then please quote it. Remember that passwords are case sensitive. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I finally managed to login but I couldn't use my last personal data. Thank you for help!User talk:Alexandrakis7,23/10,10:04. I have problem again. I was loged in successfully, but now I don't look to be a registered user. Please, help!User: Alexandrakis,23/10/10:04. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.8.154 (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Your earlier post was from User:Alexandrakis7 and not User:Alexandrakis. If you are unable to log in then please post the username you try with and quote the error message you get. If you don't want to sign with four tildes &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; then you can make a time stamp with five tildes &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I am logged in with the name User:7AD7 (User talk:7AD7) 1:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC+2)


 * OK. If you want help with something then please clarify the problem. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Computer Identity
Thanks for your response at "Help Talk: Logging In". I thought it better to reply here, as it's really a different topic. You will see that statement about "same computer" is used in the discussion here. Yes, it seems that the administrator was using "checkuser" but on named accounts, not on ip addresses. But what was claimed there does not seem quite right, does it?. As you will see, why ever those different accounts were created, and whoever made the edits in question using them, the accused editor feels rather hard done by. He claims that multiple accounts, even emanating from the same ip address is not, in itself, evidence of sockpuppetry. That whole question aside, however, I think the statement about "same computer" raises rather awkward questions about privacy and security. As an independent admin, what do you think? Thanks anyway for your time. 86.166.17.30 (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The user admitted having multiple accounts and only denied using them in an abusive way. I don't have access to checkuser evidence but I'm guessing it was a static IP address as opposed to dynamic, and there may have been other evidence like editing patterns. I still don't think checkusers can see whether the same computer is editing. For privacy reasons, checkusers are not allowed to publish specific IP address information of logged in users so checkusers have to state their conclusions without presenting the evidence. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, certainly that user admitted having multiple accounts, although there was some question over whether he had created all of them or made all of the edits. One would not expect checkusers to publish data, but I would have thought many thousnads of editors would want to know whether or not details of their computers can be traced by complete strangers, and in what circumstances. In fact, isn't that the sort of basic fact that ought to made clear to anyone on the introductory pages for new users before they agree to sign up as editors? Multiple computers routed through a single ip address is the norm for many households, and with that comes more scope for abuse. But I think this is a pretty basic question that someone ought to be able to answer clearly yes or no. Perhaps there is a forum where this could be raised? Thanks. 109.153.216.227 (talk) 08:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * meta:Help:CheckUser says checkusers can also see user agent strings. If two user agent strings from the same IP address are identical then it may appear likely to be the same computer, but it could also be a household or organization which has the same software versions on multiple computers, or has a setup to spoof the same user agent string. Any website you visit can see your user agent string and choose to log it. Wikimedia projects have a "Privacy policy" link at the bottom of all pages. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#IP_and_other_technical_information says "When a visitor requests or reads a page, or sends email to a Wikimedia server, no more information is collected than is typically collected by web sites." You could try asking a checkuser if you want to know more. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for that. So it seems that it's quite wrong to say that it's possible to identify which computer has made which edits (even the last ten). It is possible to say only which type of computer (or other device) has made them. I would guess that it is quite common for different household members to be using identical devices on the same ip address. 109.153.210.148 (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Nontransitive dice - Best three nontransitive dice
What about i change subject of section to 'Best three nontransitive dice with equal probabalites'? When I read the information about 'nontransitive dice' I lacked the information that how big probabality i can made with three dice. I think this is important information. Mayby in other form?

Bogus.Koszalka (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't create unsourced criteria for "best" and you shouldn't base the result on your own calculations. See WP:No original research. If you use a published reliable source like then you can write something about it. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Top ten European female tennis players
Hey, there was the mistake, sorry. Overreading is what caused it, I reverted it back. :( Kante4 (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry
I'm just trying to fix redirects that's all i'm not trying to make vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.119.45 (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Create a list of ways to die by natural nature or notable poisons and possibly accidents.plus to change my account user name
Would it be good if i created a wikipedia article on list of ways to die by nature and notable poisons or accidents like hurricanes tsunami thunderstorm lighting bolt taser laser supernova gamma ray burst coronal mass ejection plasma volcanic eruption earthquake quick sand meteoroid acid rain ozone layer overdose on poison ivy cancer box jelly fish sea urchin neurotoxin anthrax and maybe include space diving parachute crazy xtreme missions,and attacks by killer whale,anaconda venom. I actually have a list of over 1000 ways of possibly deaths by nature and notable accidents and deadly creatures to avoid. This death article will not be about ways to die like final destination like car plane crash accidents. This article will attract new wikipedia members it will have a lot of electric in the air for people that want to write books about danger zones or natural deaths. Wikipedia has nothing to lose and a lot to gain. It sound random but most people will already know most of these ways to die. It wont vandalize anything or anyone no one has this article yet to.It will be a interesting article for every field in science especially medical. It might even save lives or put fear into people that want to go out into animal kingdom to provoke a grizzly bear or reptile alligator or do extreme chaotic events that puts there life at stake just for adrenaline rush. Wikipedia needs a little steroid boost in action adventures not just facts and equations put it all together u will get a grand finale super fantastic universal wikipedia.

AND I checked out Changing username on how to change my user name but it just shows u what to avoid on creating user names, do i type it in the archives box on bottom right? or is that only for to create a new page article, where do i change my user name and how long can it be,where is the sight to change it, i want to add my last name worthington.Shawn laser lightning plasma (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Replied at Help desk. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Smallest non-notable number paradox
I remember to have read somewhere about that paradox which essentially states that all natural numbers are notable, as otherwise there would be a smallest non-notable number, which in turn would make the number notable. Do you know who stated that or whether it is mentioned in a Wikipedia article? I can't seem to find out. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting number paradox. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Awesome, thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

US Open edition
This is how I got the numbers User:Afkatk/SandboxP10, hope this helps and if it turns out I'm incorrect in my method, sorry for the mess up. Afro ( Talk ) 17:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Further investigation turned up this list. No single year is missing, and the list from 1881 to 2011 indeed counts 131 editions. (I employed MS Excel for counting.) I will adapt the edition numbers on the Dutch Wikipedia, which means you guys have a nice job to do on the English Wikipedia. :-( Good luck and be brave. Vinkje83 (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Armbrust Talk to me about my editsreview  17:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Pythagorean1 and Pythagorean2 mislabeling edits to Numerology as minor
Hi, Jens. I would take a less personal approach to dispute resolution, but don't recall the best procedure and know you are an administrator. User Pythagorean1 has been placing undiscussed text of some length in the article mentioned and labeling them minor edits. I tried to simply tell him/her at his/her talk page that the second edit was a duplicate, s/he undid my revert, and then I erased the whole amount, with him/her restoring that text as the most recent action. It appears to be a poorly followed article, so the person or people may successfully modify the text in a deleterious way with little response. Just bringing this to your attention (and that of anyone else reading here). I am busy and unpractised in managing this form of dispute.Julzes (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I see Arthur Rubin has reverted so I will stay out currently. He is also an admin although it's not needed here. Uw-minor can be used to warn users against marking edits as minor. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Stupid mistake
Thanks for correcting my stupid mistake about MiszaBot III. For reasons I won't waste time explaining, the system clock on my computer is 48 hours fast, and I was under the impression today was 18 December. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Why?
This edit - misclick, or is there something I'm missing? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Didn't know I did that. Sorry. I must have hit rollback accidentally on my watchlist. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)