User talk:Qwertyus/archive3


 * User talk:Qwertyus/archive1
 * User talk:Qwertyus/archive2

Disambiguation link notification for July 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Artificial neural network, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Classification (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

pkg
Hi.

I found the following article about pkg in the Phoronix website:

FreeBSD Still Working On Next-Gen Package Manage

So, does this prove the notability of that article?

Thanks,

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkouhi (talk • contribs) 16:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess so, and feel free to add it, but I'm not convinced that a separate page is needed. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 09:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=569081429 your edit] to Affinity propagation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * be a function that quantifies the similarity between any two points, that is s(xᵢ, xⱼ) s(xᵢ, xₖ) iff xⱼ is more similar to xᵢ than xₖ.
 * ::$$a(k,k) \leftarrow \sum_{i' \neq k} \max 0, r(i',k)$$.

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Sourov0000. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Nicola Giordano, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Sourov0000 (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update
Hey Qwertyus. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

JabirOS AFD template
Hi. I've added one independent reference on JabirOS article. plaese remove AFD template. Tahnks. Prp-e (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not allowed to remove an AfD template as long as the discussion is underway. You can post a comment, or a vote to keep with mention of the reference, at Articles for deletion/JabirOS. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 19:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited NumPy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Memory mapping (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

DCI Group
Hi Qwertyus. As it seems that Dentalplanlisa has not been active on Wikipedia for over two weeks and our discussion on Talk:DCI Group is not yet resolved, I feel it is time to resubmit the discussion at Third opinion. However, if you still wanted to comment on the compromise I suggested, please do.

Thank you. Willemite (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Go ahead! Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 21:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Merchant Warehouse
Just wanted to give you the heads up that I declined you speedy deletion tag of Merchant Warehouse, as I did not think it was blatantly promotional. If you still think the article meets our deletion policy, please propose it for deletion or nominate it for a deletion discussion. Singularity42 (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok. I don't feel like the whole XfD thing right now, so I toned it down a bit. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 22:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Logistic model tree, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cross-validation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Web-Based Content
Umm its not nice to call other peoples work bad. yea, umm I created the web based content article, and frankly, I wasnt using it as a dictionary page. I just dont sit around all day like some fat guy making edits to the wikipedia. Yea im not Done with it.--Koy Hoffman (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I was actually polite enough to call it "not good" instead of "bad", and when you publish something on the Wikipedia where it's up for public scrutiny, you'd better be ready to deal with criticism. It's not meant personally and if you wish to object to the deletion nomination, then please do so at that page (as I see you've done already). Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 21:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=575347534 your edit] to ISO 13849 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * {stub}

DCI Group again
Hi again Qwertyus. I wanted to let you know that I replied to your most recent comment on Talk:DCI Group. Let me know what you think when you have a moment.

Thank you. Willemite (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I see that you removed the link for Al Gore's Penguin Army, but left Astroturfing in the See also section. I didn't see a talk page note from you explaining this and I wondered if there was a particular reason to keep the latter when it too is already linked in the article?


 * Thank you. Willemite (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I see you removed the rest of the See also section. I don't anticipate having much time for Wikipedia coming up so I'm going to go ahead and leave a comment on Talk:DCI Group noting the change you've made and that we discussed the other half of my request.


 * Thank you. Willemite (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Pisi Linux
Hi,

First off, sorry if I slip up here and there, as I am new to this and finding my way around. I have tried to read up on protocol etc, but there's a lot of stuff to digest and work through.

Anyway, could you advise me on a couple points please?

I'm unsure as to why, exactly, your 10:07 Oct 4th deletions (sopboxing) were made. Did the deleted Technologies>package management items constitute soap-boxing? Are they not valid as actual and beneficial features? Point taken about LZMA citation, and will address.

Also, the other deletion, was that my awkward use of language (use of readily was superfluous)?

References: Currently investigating potential sources. In the meantime, does the principle of source criteria extend as far as say to Refs: 7, 8 and 9 - in that external (reliable) sources of reference are required in the first instance?

Sorry for the long-windedness and I'm not 'having a pop', just trying to pin things down.

Thanks in advance

Souloftherobot (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's the gist of it. All content on Wikipedia should be neutral and verifiable through the use of reliable, third-party sources. Writing that your product is great and has all kinds of neat features, without non-affiliated sources that corroborate their importance, constitutes soapboxing. In fact, writing about your own product is strongly discouraged because it produces a conflict of interest between you and Wikipedia. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 13:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick reply.


 * Just to be clear, references 7,8 & 9 are not suitable on their own for the purposes of those particular items?


 * If you mean the forum posts about releases, those are fine since they do not express anything controversial and are only used to back the release dates and codenames in the article. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 10:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You did not advise me regarding the specific reason for your deletion of my use of 'readily'. I ask so that I can learn, early on, and adjust accordingly and hopefully provide better material.


 * Readily expresses an opinion, since it has the connotation of ease of use. I'm sure the Pisi package manager can install a new desktop environment with a few clicks, but I'd like to see something like a reliable review site corroborate this. (I don't know Pisi myself, but I've worked with lots of different package managers over the years, and while each claimed to be easy to use, some where definitely friendlier than others.) Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 10:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Lastly, you assume that this is my project (even if presumably meant as part of a team). I am a Pisi Linux end-user but I am not officially involved with this 'product'.


 * Ok, sorry about that. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 10:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks again.


 * Souloftherobot (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Extended @ Afd was partly because I was checking this page for follow up to my previous post here - no reply, but saw your comment over at Afd, and responded there.

But if I reinstate 'Comprehensive CLI and a user-friendly qt GUI (distributed separately)' as I did with 'Ease of use' (now twice) - what is likely result? As I said, it seems pretty hard work (I have not accomplished any 'real' work on the article today - just bogged down with this instead).
 * Along with 'Ease of use', 'Comprehensive CLI and a user-friendly qt GUI (distributed separately)' was also removed.
 * The PISI entry is not actually describing a GUI (easy) package manager. It is describing the package management system - and states: ".......and a user-friendly qt GUI (distributed separately)".


 * What's wrong with just stating that it has a CLI and a GUI, and perhaps that the latter is separate? Both "comprehensive" and "user-friendly" are non-neutral terms, which should not be used without attribution to a reliable third party. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 11:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, you have now put me right about my use of 'readily'. Still think the ref about PISI is legit - as ref article treated package management systems and that is the core component of Pisi Linux. The fact that the ref article mentions Pardus as using PISI is incidental within the article surely. As I said, it might have mentioned Pisi Linux and/or SolusOS - but that is not the point or subject of the ref article. Is there any means of second opinion?


 * According to WP:GNG, sources must "[address] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." I.e. the fact that the source does not mention Pisi Linux at all means that it does not establish the notability of Pisi Linux.
 * To make an analogy, suppose I write an article about a chocolate factory. Then a book about chocolate production that does not mention the factory in question does not establish its notability, regardless of whether it happens to describe pretty much what goes on inside this particular factory.
 * For an extra pair of eyes, consult Third_opinion. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 11:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: Pardus (PISI-based) no longer exists. It was declared EOL late 2011.


 * That doesn't matter. Historical operating systems can be notable, see e.g. OS/VS1 or Version 7 Unix. The fact that something no longer exists is no reason not to write about it. The Pardus page has extensive citations that establish its notability, as a project that was heavily used by the Turkish government. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 11:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.

Souloftherobot (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks for your responses.

My reason for mentioning EOL, is just that Pardus/Pisi Linux 'relatitionship', current Pardus status etc, have a bearing. And because of this apparent lack of general awareness (and possible impact), thought I'd highlight it.

Btw, would (sincerely) be interested to know if you were aware of the actual EOL, or if the current status of Pardus is clear to you, for instance?

Thanks,

Souloftherobot (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am a bit confused: I see that (for instance), you have provided a link (LZMA) pointing to the Wikipedia article. I know that the link is not a 'reference' in support of the main subject (Pisi Linux itself). But didn't you say that wikis (which includes Wikipedia) are not acceptable for any purpose?

Thanks.

Souloftherobot (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * When to link is governed by the Manual of Style. Wikilinks do not serve as references, but as "see also" links and potentially disambiguation. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 15:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, and thanks. Will have a look at the MOS.

Souloftherobot (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent A10
I don't think copy-and-paste moves from AFC to mainspace are A10-eligible, as AFC submissions are not existing articles on the subject. I didn't challenge it in this case.

The "legal" way where there is no WP:HISTMERGE requirement (i.e. only 1 author making non-trivial contributions to the article's content) is to pretend the AFC submission never existed (and decline it as duplicating an existing article) and either clean up the article or nominate or PROD it for deletion or if it is otherwise CSD-eligible, tag-and-bag it. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  20:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The AfC template at the bottom of the page indicated that it the article should be moved to AfC space because it was unreviewed, rather than leave it in the main space. Since the AfC submission still existed, I couldn't perform the move and requested a speedy instead, with A10 being closest to the actual reason for the speedy. I'm aware that it was a bit of a stretch, and I'll take the route you suggest next time, thanks. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 08:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see your point. I usually ask myself this question:  Who did the copy?  If it was the original author, that shows intent to bypass AFC.  If it was someone else, then it may be un-discernable, and  may be better than a PROD or AFC, but like an A10, it would be a case of Ignore All Rules by both the tagger and the deleting admin.  Sometimes it's nice that "Ignore all rules" has the status of policy :) .  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  14:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Your edit to page: Walter Daelemans
Dear Qwertyus, in your edit to page Walter Daelemans, I believe you accidentally deleted the latest additions to the page. Your edit description only states "link memory-based LP to Instance-based learning" and this has changed, but everything I added during my latest edit has been deleted. Can you please check/undo your revision or provide more explanation on what may have been wrong with my additions? I specifically added information that would further improve the relevance of the article as described in WP:Academic. Kind regards, --Verhoevenben (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * My mistake, I started editing from the wrong version. Sorry, reverted my edits. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 14:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem, thanks for correcting! --Verhoevenben (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: African Diaspora Medical Project
Hello Qwertyus, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of African Diaspora Medical Project, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fork (system call), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stack (computing) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Women Side by Side
Hi Qwertyus, I've replied to your comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Women Side by Side. Regards, -Zanhe (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Aesymnetea is not the same as Aesymnetes
Aesymnetea is the form of governement. Aesymnetes were called the elected oficials Aisymniteia (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * But there's not enough material to warrant separate articles. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 14:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * there is nothing to do with enough material. It is a matter of Sense. Presidential system is not the same as the Presidents! Aisymniteia (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. When two short articles discuss the same phenomenon, in casu the rule of aesymnetes in Ancient Greek, then merging them is a good way to keep the information in one place. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 14:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm MrScorch6200. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Paul G. Davies, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. MrScorch6200 (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellen DeGeneres 2009 Tulane University Commencement Address (2nd nomination)


A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellen DeGeneres 2009 Tulane University Commencement Address (2nd nomination), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

I didn't know about Articles for deletion/Ellen DeGeneres 2009 Tulane University Commencement Address, because the page's author had removed the AfD tag.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 23:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I found a bug in Twinkle :) Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 23:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ross lahlou


A tag has been placed on Ross lahlou requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here.   &#127866;  Antiqueight  confer 20:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Trie article
Hello there! I've just reverted your edit on the Trie article, so please allow me to explain.

Those source code examples can hardly be taken as some kind of howtos in programming. As we know, source code examples are the best way to provide explanations of an algorithm etc. Also, NOTHOWTO prohibits quoting large chunks of source code from some finished products &mdash; while those are just examples used for describing algorithms and data structure the article is talking about. If we had the whole Quake 1 source code qouted in an article, for example, that would've been a completely different story. :)

Hope you agree. -- Dsimic (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I don't agree that source code is the best way to exemplify an algorithm: well-written pseudocode is. That's why the better textbooks typically don't carry any real code examples. I think these examples are very distracting from the main text. These things belong on RosettaCode, not Wikipedia. Note that there are four examples, including two in Java!
 * To quote WP:HOWTO: "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter." Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 16:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, Ok, I can live with that. :) At least it's less cluttered now, and there are no big chunks of code that might be wrong...  Also, all that code wasn't that beautiful. :) -- Dsimic (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Glad that we can agree! The "might be wrong" part is another reason for removing it; more than once, I've tried running Wikipedia code to verify my own implementations, only to find that either the languages/libraries had changed underneath it, or some editor somewhere in the history had introduced a bug. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 16:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. :) Exactly, it isn't that easy to keep numerous chunks of code well maintained and proven to be correct all the time.  IIRC, I've seen another article with big chunks of code in it, but unfortunately can't recall the article right now. -- Dsimic (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello there! Well, I remembered the above mentioned article, :) it's the Producer–consumer problem. I'd delete its whole "Examples" section, as the earlier sections already provide enough of the sample code.  Thoughts? -- Dsimic (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

MATTLAS BLAS
Hello, I'm the author of MATTLAS BLAS. I am trying to add my implementation to the implementation list in BLAS. I am going to try my best to illustrate what is happening, at least from my perspective (that's really all I can do). I am going to start with the following: Under "Criticisms of Wikipedia" one of the comments made is that some editors have "... habits of commandeering, sanitizing and squatting discourage informed experts from spending the time and attention to make well-footnoted entries for fear that accurate and time-consuming work will be quickly deleted." Glrx's criteria for inclusion in the BLAS implementation list is as follows: 1) No one man projects.  2) Must be used. 3) Must be done by someone knowledgeable. 4) Must have some independent source verifying the authenticity of the implementation (peer review journal or conference paper). I think it is safe to say that any criteria that is not applied equally implies bias in that of the editor. Rules then are arbitrary and really at the whim of any interested editor. Applying the criteria layed out by Glrx, SurviveGotoBlas should be removed. 1) It is a one man project. 2) It is used by no projects and not maintained, it has been two years since it was updated. 3) The author admits they have no idea what they are doing, from the website:

"Q2 development continued?   It's impossible.    GotoBLAS was made by a hand of God.;-)    RUN, FAST and EXACTLY... It is impossible for me. orz "

4) SurviveGotoblas not published or referenced in any peer review journal or conference paper. This is why I am going to remove the survivegotoblas from the list of blas implementations.

Other one man projects: Atlas (whaley), Blis (Field Garritt Van Zee), GotoBLAS(Goto).

My credentials: As you have surely noticed by now, I have published several works in the area of hybrid matrix multiply implementations. I have worked at both Nvidia and Intel on their BLAS libraries. To use an example to illustrate my experience: I have rewritten the entire BLAS 3 while at Intel for the OpenCL team, to use a different threading model than OpenMP. What I am doing is providing a BLAS implementation for free that is done using engineering techniques used by professional library authors (people paid by semiconductor manufacturers to write architectural specific implementations). This is easily illustrated by looking at the source code of MATTLAS BLAS. I am going to assume that by excluding just my implementation (and no other BLAS implementation in existence) that Glrx offers a competing BLAS implementation (he/she is the author of one of the implementations in the list) and is using his/her editorial privileges to arbitrarily create rules to exclude any other BLAS implementation.

If I am mistaken, please provide an explanation of the criteria Glrx is using that allows survivegotoblas to stay in the implementation list and mattlas blas to be excluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.190.129 (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to your removing SurviveGotoBlas2. Thanks for the edit.
 * As for your general criticism of Wikipedia, it is a well-known weak point that editors' expertise is held in high enough esteem here, but that pretty much follows from the principles of WP that anyone can edit. The requirement of reliable, third-party sources is a mechanism that somewhat compensates for this; it's currently the best WP can do. By this rule, MATTLAS has no place on WP until it reaches a critical mass in the outside world. You might want to write a conference paper about it instead of a Wikipedia entry. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 11:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.190.129 (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Constraint Handling Rules, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tautology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Suvodeep chatterjee CSD
I don't think Suvodeep chatterjee is eligible for WP:CSD because the previous AfD was closed because it was moot, because I userfied the article. - MrX 19:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * NP. Let's await AfD, then. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 19:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

BLAST (protocol) edits
( Former content, with some edits, moved to talk: BLAST (protocol) )

But -- I am not conversant with the standard practice of Wikipedians. This "before-the-fact" attempt to curry favor may be a "no-no"! Maybe better to just "run the edit up the flagpole, and see who salutes"???Synchronist (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Run it up the flagpole is policy: WP:BOLD. Also, please discuss this kind of stuff on the article talk page, so others interested in the topic are more likely to see it; hardly anyone reads my talk page. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 10:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm reading it. :) However, I agree that this discussion should be moved to the article's talk page, for multiple reasons. &mdash; Dsimic (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Headless men (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Greek and Antiquity


 * Cynocephaly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Mastiff

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=585136323 your edit] to Python Imaging Library may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ltd.]] |url=http://packages.ubuntu.com/raring/python/python-imaging}} |accessdate=December 8, 2013

The important stuff
Dear Qwertyus,

Now that we've got the BLAST article put to bed (and I am most curious as to how you stumbled upon it in the first place, and how you might have gained your obvious familiarity with the "protocol wars" of the 1980s), we can get to the important stuff: artificial intelligence!

More soon!

(And I apologize for using your talk page -- just this once! -- as a substitute for email. My own email address can be found at the bottom of these two pages:

www.space-machines.com www.birds-of-the-air-press.com Synchronist (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Damerau–Levenshtein distance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metric (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Nicholas Lens
17:19, 23 October 2013 (diff | hist). . (-1,067)‎ . . N. Lens ‎ (→‎Personal life: remove anecdotes from affiliated (and untrusted) biography; remove claim of "autodidact composer" (he was at a Conservatory!))

Here above you corrected this phrase, very sure of yourself as you put even an exclamation point. But what do you know, actually? And you make your remark, based on what..? Think for two seconds. Lens was a student for other disciplines. If you study philosophy, but was never at any class of computer science, then you are an autodidact computer scientist, nothing more, nothing less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artistresearch (talk • contribs) 10:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You still need reliable third-party source to establish someone as an autodidact in whichever field, esp. when they studied a related field. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 14:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Response to "Proposed deletion of Half Life: Before"
I am not making that page up, either you are not a pc gamer, don't have steam, or whatever, but whatever it is, I AM NOT MAKING THAT GAME UP! i even told you it was a stub in the edit summary, why don't you guys even help fix the pages? oh, because your a CoD fanboy!

Sorry for my anger and offense here, but that is just stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hug0905 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying you make anything up. But please cite your sources and establish the notability of the game/mod you write an article about. If you read a bunch of reviews, then at least add links to them so we can check those; right now, you're expecting others to redo your work. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 16:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

about this page: Lilian lilith russo
Hallo!

as far as i understood, you are in charge with this page: Lilian lilith russo

i created the page and will follow any step for seeing published and not deleted please give me any tip and information I have to follow for letting the page to be published, i will upload the page from time to time

thanks for your collaboration

kind regards

gianni grillo — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiovanB.Grillo (talk • contribs) 13:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not in charge of anything, I'm just an editor like you. The reason that your article got deleted is that it didn't use reliable sources to prove the notability of its topic. So if you want to recreate the article, make sure you have credible, third-party sources for it such as books, major websites, newspapers, etc.
 * Also, consider using Articles for Creation instead of publishing your article straight away, to get some guidance. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 14:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You should also consider writing your article using a sandbox and then it will probably not be deleted while you work on it. then you can use Articles for Creation.  Read these articles: WP:About the Sandbox and WP:Articles for Creation. —     Bill W.     (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 14:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Lova Falk    talk   19:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Lgcsmasamiya. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, List of power stations in Utah, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Lgcsmasamiya (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=589741207 your edit] to List of Indian engineering college rankings may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * * Careers360 2013 –  [Careers360] Top Engineering Colleges in India 2013 {{cite web|url=http://engineering.

Thurs function being actively revised
Dear Qwertyus;

Now that we have the beach head established, Prof. Powell is now getting his bibliography together and we will get the citations and sources lined up. Some of the citations are under copyright but I want to make them available to editors. We were going to re-publish a lot of his material on scribd.com but they are not behind a paywall. We may re-publish his old citations in the internet archive. Can we point there ? We have to qualify the copyright issue, but I would like to have private links so that editors, such as yourself verify the citations.

Prof. Powell has a large but old body of peer reviewed material we want to cite. Unfortunately we don't have copies of these. We are getting copies even if I have to buy a back issue for way too much money.

Thank you for your interest. I will get up to speed with the math editor to make a nice display version of the Thurs function.

Sincerely,

Dr. Karron acolyte to Prof. Powell


 * You can cite pretty much any peer-reviewed publication, whether it's behind the paywall or on paper only, but what you can't do is post an article in mainspace that seems to be copied straight out of an article. What you must do, however, is assert the notability of the topic you are writing about, and two citations to the work of the same scientist with a low citation count just aren't enough. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 21:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quicksort, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Sedgewick (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)