User talk:TedPavlic/Archive 1

Google Web Accelerator Problem
unblock-auto|1=64.233.173.85|2=To edit, please disable Google Web Accelerator for Wikipedia. Please see http://webaccelerator.google.com/support.html#preferences2 for details.


 * Are you haing problems disabling web accelerator? --pgk 17:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I've disabled it. I added en.wikipedia.org to its list of disabled sites. I thought the next step was to add that unlock line to here. Let me know if there's something else I need to do. --TedPavlic 17:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's been disabled then you should be ok to edit, it was the IP address which was blocked so disabling web accelerator fixes that. --pgk 18:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirects
Hi. Just a note. Creating redirects of the form Ordinary Differential equation (mixed capitals) is in the long term not so helpful. If you type that in the search box the software is smart enough to figure out the correct capitals for you and direct you to the appropriate article even if the above is a redlink. On the other hand, having the above mixed capitalization link would I think encourage typos in articles (if you type the above and see it is red, you may think you did something wrong and may fix it, if you see it blue, you may think all is fine and leave it that way).

You can reply here if you have comments. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern; however, I create these entries to aid Mozilla Firefox and Camino users who define smart search bookmarks to get to Wikipedia pages. For example, when I type  into the URL box of either of these browsers, because of a quick search setup in the bookmarks, I am taken to  . Unfortunately, if the capitalization is not correct, I am taken to the "Edit this page" page rather than the "Search" page that does the search for me. It's true that I can click the "Search for ..." link directly, and I often do, but this one extra click gets frustrating after a while. It's especially frustrating because WikiWords force the first letter to be capitalized, so that letter in the quick search gets capitalized automatically while the first letter of the second word retains its quick search case. Personally, I think that the WikiMedia software could be made user-friendly in this respect. It makes looking things up quickly much more convenient. Does that make sense? Am I the first person to use Wikipedia as a Mozilla quick search? I would be happy if instead of being taken to the "Edit this page" page, I was taken to the same page that results from clicking the "Go" in theOrdinary Differential equation search box on the left of the page. --TedPavlic 19:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I would argue that creating these entries prevents others from creating duplicate entries that simply have different case. I'm sure there are SOME stubs out there that are simply the result of people creating pages that they thought didn't exist. --TedPavlic 19:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are correct if you talk about links of the form Ordinary Differential Equation, but I would doubt your reasoning for links of the form Ordinary Differential equation. Given a link made up of three words as above, there are 8 possible choices of uppercase/lower case for the first letter, and adding one more word doubles the number of cases (and except for one or two, all those combinations are not grammatically correct) . While I understand your reasoning, I'd still think that doing all possible combinations of upper/lower case in the long turn would not provide gain, perhaps even the other way around. But there is room for disagreement. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll give it more thought. For now, I'll just stick to whatever case is necessary for a Firefox quick search to return the correct thing provided all lowercase was used in the quick search. I think that should work, right? Thanks. --TedPavlic 16:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"lilliopsida"
I don't remember the specific circumstances, but it's usually helpful to have redirects for the most common misspellings are alternate spellings - not unknown for someone to see a red link and create a duplicate article. Higher-level taxa in plant taxoboxes is an unsettled situation right now, I wouldn't expend too much brainpower on it. When we come to a decision, we'll probably mass-change boxes with a bot. Stan 23:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

apes
There are 7 species of great apes: 2 are gorillas, 2 are chimpanzees, 2 are orangutans, 1 is human. If we are going to note that there are two different species of chimps, we should do the same for gorillas and orangutans. But that's overly pedantic. This line isn't the place to show there are two species of chimps. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:ColumbusOH.gif
Hello, TedPavlic. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:ColumbusOH.gif) was found at the following location: User:TedPavlic. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Limit superior and limit inferior
Hi. I left a comment at Talk:Limit superior and limit inferior. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have acted as you wish. The changes have been made to the article. I have added to the discussion. I have also responded on your talk page. --TedPavlic 13:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I replied there too. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Your move on Dormand-Prince
I noticed you moved the Dormand–Prince to Dormand-Prince. This is wrong with regard to WP:DASH, where the Michelson–Morley experiment is the example. Dormand and Prince are two persons, thus Dormand–Prince should have an "en dash", not a hyphen. Would you please revert your move unless you disagree? --Berland (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was using the style guidelines from The Chicago Manual of Style. Now that I see that Wikipedia has its own bizarre style, I suppose I'm forced to agree. There's no argument. There's WP and there's the rest of the world. So I guess I must change things back. How silly. Thanks for pointing out WP's strange choices. Wisdom of the crowd! --TedPavlic | talk 20:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reverting. Just as a sidenote, I am accustomed to using the en-dash for these cases in publications, so for me the hyphen is just as bizarre (though I see it a lot). However, I am plainly following Wikipedia conventions on this issue. --Berland (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Transistor circuits
Hi Ted. Thanks for your work on the various transistor amplifier articles. User:Brews_ohare and myself spent some time working on them last year, but there's still a lot to be done. If you feel inclined, check out some of the discussions/ideas we posted on the various talk pages. I'd love to see, and help, these articles become more substantial. -Roger (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

An invitation to join WikiProject Ohio
 Hi, you are listed under Category:Wikipedians in Ohio or one of its subcategories. WikiProject Ohio has been slowing down and we're looking for active Ohioans to turn that around! But first, let us introduce ourselves; we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Ohio and we're sure there's somewhere you'll fit in just fine. The project's departments include article quality assessment: We have over 5,000 articles to assess for class alone, newsletter writing: This has been delayed by a few months, and new page patrolling: Which has also been slowing down. We also have a newly formed taskforce on our over 1,000 townships at WP:OHTWP.

We have 132 members, many of which are not active within the project. If you are listed there and still received this message please accept the auotmated porcess's apologies. If you are interested in joining us please list you name here. If you're not interested please note this is a one time invite and you will never hear from us again.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to leave a message at our talkpage or with any member of the project, we'll be happy to answer any of your questions. We look forward to seeing you around!

Delivered by: §hepBot  ( Disable )  04:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)



Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems
Thanks for joining the WikiProject Systems. If there is something I can do for you let me know. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Electronics collaboration
Hi, I am writing to you because you have listed yourself as a member of the Electronics WikiProject. Sadly, this project is pretty dead, but I propose to resuscitate it with a collaboration. The idea is to have a concerted effort on improving one article per month, hopefully to GA or FA status and nominate the very best of them for the front page. I have prepared a page to control this process at WikiProject Electronics/Collaboration (actually, I mostly shamelessly stole it from WikiProject Mammals where a collaboration of this sort was succesfully run). There you can make nominations for articles for collaboration or comment on the nominations of others.

If you want to take part you might like to place this template  on your userpage which will give you a link to the current collaboration. If you are no longer interested in Wikiproject Electronics, please remove yourself from the members list, which is now at WikiProject Electronics/Members

Thanks for listening,  Sp in ni ng  Spark  17:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

PS, I know you work on the project page so have probably got it watchlisted and have seen what I am doing, but have the standard message anyway! Sp in ni ng  Spark  17:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes made by SmackBot
Hi, thanks for your message, SmackBot makes a number of changes that are available to all WP:AWB bots - in general these provide a number of non-controversial minor improvements.

The issue you raise is related to these, and has been discussed in the past. The present arrangement is the result of consensus.

MoS says: "Use the simplest markup to display information in a useful and comprehensible way. Markup may appear differently in different browsers. Use HTML and CSS markup sparingly and only with good reason. Minimizing markup in entries allows easier editing."

YOu can of course bring this up at WP:AWB if yu think it worth-while - a change in AWB has more effect than simply changing SB's behaviour

Regards,

Nonlinear observability
Thanks for the explanations in lyap theory based control. Can you write something about nonlinar observability ??? Thanks مبتدئ (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? Is there a particular page that you think needs work? Can you provide some suggestions or some questions that you're having? Nonlinear observability and nonlinear observers/estimators are in principle no different than their linear counterparts; however, you have to use nonlinear methods to guarantee convergence to the desired state vector. There are lots of directions we can go in from here. For example, researchers are now experimenting with using variable structure controlled observers (in particular, sliding mode controlled observers) so that the state vector can be estimated very quickly (in particular, in FINITE TIME) even in the presence of uncertainty. That's a nice property. Give me a few more specifics on what (and where) should be improved, and I can see what I can do. &mdash;TedPavlic | (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Ted, Thanks for your detailed response in my discussion page (i will need to read again attentively in order to be able to discuss!!). Concerning the Nonlinear observability: I was thinking about the equivalent stuff to formulas in the linear case like a system is observable if [C,CA,CA^2,...CA^n] has full rank or the extension of the concept to nonlinear systems (like flatness which extends the concept of controllability). If i m not wrong there are also a lot of specific jargon for nonlinear observability (local observability, the use of lie derivatives, uniform observability, the observability space,etc...). All this is not existant in the article Observability. I thought that may be an expert can give more information about that!?

What you wrote about observer is also very interesting (i think this is an advanced topic). May be a new article for that (called nonlinear observer) will be the best solution. I ll be grateful if you gave any information about any of both topics!!!! Best Regards! مبتدئ (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sliding mode improvements
"In February, you made comments on the sliding mode control article. Have the recent major changes addressed your concerns? If not, could you add to the talk page with some suggestions? Thanks! —TedPavlic | (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)"

Ted,

Thanks for your concerns. After re-reading the article introduction, I still feel the same way. It's missing a key phrase at the beginning, something like: "Sliding mode is a technique to (do something or other, to solve a particular problem) which is otherwise hard to do because (reason it's hard to do). It is used in (how it's used)...". Having said that, let me say that its perfectly OK for you to just dismiss me as an uninitiated person, and say that the article is intended for people who already have some understanding in the field.

Thanks,

D'de Davide Andrea (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Muttator promotion
Please stop inserting inappropriate promotional material into the Mutt (e-mail client) article. WP:SEEALSO states that redlinks do not belong in "See also" sections. WP:EL states that external links should be provided sparingly, and that promotion of external resources should be avoided. I'm planning on reverting these changes; please do not continue to add such material to other articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you approve the move to external link? Muttator is certainly related in a significant way to mutt. &mdash;TedPavlic | (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "In a significant way" would require that a significant number of reliable secondary sources had covered the software in question. I don't believe that this is currently the case. Certainly a lot of software is inspired by mutt, but that doesn't make it appropriate to add to the links section. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're the boss. It's removed. &mdash;TedPavlic | (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for understanding. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Spaces before infoboxes
No, I don't believe we should add spaces (as either wikitext blank lines, or HTML empty elements). A better solution in terms of both semantics and presentation is to change the CSS of the infobox's container, so that the  property is larger. That has better behaviour when rendered, related to the "collapsing margins" behaviour of CSS.

This is an easy change, but I imagine the legwork of changing a widely used setting like this (probably inherited into every infobox) is impractical in the wikiverse.

I'd agree that 'bots are becoming a pain though. Especially that damned Lightbot. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing
Try to use preview or userpages to make edits in "one-go". Less edit history that way and less database load aswell. Good work otherwise. Electron9 (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Less database load? REALLY? I know that Wikipedia historically uses RCS as its behind-the-scenes SCM, but I don't think RCS was bogged down too much by extra changesets. It's good SCM policy to package a few small related changes within one changeset. Among other things, it makes reversions easier and more manageable. People who contribute to other major open-source projects (e.g., Linux, git, etc.) get exactly the opposite advice. Certainly those projects have different SCM priorities, but it's still interesting that Wikipedia editors would be given such totally different advice. Plus, because it's usually convenient to make edits to Wikipedia one section-at-a-time (with the section edit button), it's easy to make several edits to one page in a sitting, and I was given the impression that that was encouraged. I've recently modified the page on using external editors with Wikipedia so that the Vim section includes the ability to fold based on section... That should make it easier to avoid section-by-section commits. &mdash;TedPavlic (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It was not the intention to offend. It's just easier to compare one edit than many edits. Electron9 (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you use Twinkle? If so, you can click the "since mine" tab and see a diff comparing your previous edit with the current edit that you're looking at. It's much easier. It "squashes" all intermediate diffs into one. Thanks. (and sorry for the bother) &mdash;TedPavlic (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes made by SmackBot (self link removal)
Hi, thanks for your message, SmackBot makes a number of changes that are available to all WP:AWB bots - in general these provide a number of non-controversial minor improvements.

Regards,


 * Thanks for your response. I've re-posted my concerns at the AWB talk page. &mdash;TedPavlic (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ohio meetup
Brainstorming is taking place! Feel free to check it out, and make sure to add your name to the possible attendees if you'd like more information, as this page is mostly gauging interest at the moment.  hmwith τ   02:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Flip-flop, set–reset, and hyphenation
I'm responding to a question you posed in an edit summary to Flip-flop (electronics). My own thoughts are that flip-flop should be hyphenated since it it a single term: referring to a flip or a flop by themselves does not make any sense in this context, and there is no difference to countless other hyphenated terms. Set–reset is slightly more troublesome. I would tend to agree an en dash is preferred but you could argue that since set–reset is a self contained phrase it is more appropriate to use a hyphen. I'm easy either way on that way provided usage is consistent. Flip-flop seems pretty clear cut in favour of hyphenation to me. CrispMuncher (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Referencing the history section of the flip–flop page, it seems like the name is referring to a "flip–flop sound" (i.e., a sound that consists of a "flip" and then a "flop"). So it seems reasonable to me to use the en dash instead of the hyphen. I just don't like the hyphen because "flip" has nothing to do with "flop." It would be one thing if there were several types of "flop", and this type of "flop" was a "flip flop", and so this type of device was a "flip-flop device," but that's not the case. Of course, by that logic, the ball used in table tennis should be called a "ping–pong ball, but most references I've found drop the dash entirely. &mdash;TedPavlic (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The first Wikipedian meetup in Ohio
Thanks! --Rkitko (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Linking
I will probably be accused of Forum Shopping, but an opponent to my suggestion for using self-links for the bold reiteration of an article title gave a link to a previous discussion, where you suggested and gave a great comment on this, which I've quoted in the RfC discussion. There are about 3 weeks left to run on the RfC, with a dozen against, but one slightly shifting position on the principle, but not the practicality. I was hoping that you might give some critique of my essay on this, and perhaps give an appraisal of the proposal on the RfC - although it seems doomed to failure, but I live in hope!

The MoS is going beyond it's competence - I think - to dictate use of mark-up, also beyond the competence of it's regular contributors. Perhaps you would like to work with me on a proposal to change Policy to that effect? HarryAlffa (talk) 10:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you may need to let this dead dog lie. The proposal was rejected, partly due to people not really understanding the issue, but that's just what you get with Wikipedia. The Wikipedia project gives lay people much more input than they would on any other formally published work, and for that editors should be grateful. Unfortunately, the democracy that underlies the organizational structure of Wikipedia means that sometimes good arguments (like good politicians) lose. It's best to move on.
 * Additionally, I've had a chance to give it a little more thought, and I'm not sure the issue is quite so black and white. For example, there is an argument that alternate forms of the same title should be bolded, but they certainly shouldn't be linked. It would be a pain to use the same Wikilink with different alternate text over and over again.
 * Really, I think the policy should be revised so that it just doesn't sound like, "Uh, bold seems better even though it's more characters to type for the same effect, and it's inconsistent with Wikimedia convention," but I don't think it matters that much in the end. &mdash;TedPavlic (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As you say, people don't really understand it, "an abuse of wiki-syntax", was one comment! It's just that the MoS actively discourages this use (giving thin reason!) which I think is a bit daft, although sometimes it would be a bit of a pain repeating a piped link two or three times - but you could always just bold it! Anyway, swings and roundabouts! The advantages of Wikipedia outweight the disadvantages. It's a pleasure to interact with someone with a clear, analytical, intelligence - there's very few of us here! :) HarryAlffa (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Restoring some references sections
I can't say I agree with changing all sections containing general references into "Further reading." This is problematic on many levels. The first of which is, of course, that the Manual of Style does have guidance on making sections containing general references: see Citing_sources. The template documentation for Refbegin, which I note that you have made extensive use of, also explains how to include general references in an article in a harmonious way. I should add that I disapprove of this particular template because it needlessly decreases the font size, creating potential accessibility issues for some readers. Secondly, if an article is written from sources, then those sources should be designated as references rather than merely "Further reading". Granted, in longer articles, there is a point at which it may be necessary to include inline citations. But for most short articles, a few general references are ordinarily sufficient. For these reasons, I am restoring the mistakenly retitled "References" sections on some of the articles that you have visited recently. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way, but the changes I've made do not come without precedence. They are the conventional way of dealing with inadequacies in MediaWiki's reference engine. Some things I'd like you to consider:
 * There's no need to throw out your civility on a talk page.
 * Something isn't a reference unless you refer to it explicitly in the document. A reader shouldn't be expected to search for a needle in a haystack when looking for verification.
 * The recommended reflist template uses the smaller font. refbegin and refend make other lists look consistent with ref lists.
 * (**) What happens when someone has explicit reference bullets shown and then later adds a or a reflist? The resulting list may be inconsistent (e.g., numbers in one part and bullets in another or different fonts in the different lists). Additionally, the resulting list will necessarily be out of order – the section will be ordered by appearance and the other section might be ordered, for example, alphabetically.
 * Ideally, we would like to have an Inline references (and notes) section and a References section and a Further reading section. It would be even better if MediaWiki's would have the ability to refer to an existing in-line citation with some additional note (like a page number). There's no way to enforce this much discipline among Wikipedia editors. Hence, the next best thing is to have a References section containing documents that are referred to and a Further reading section for everything else. If you want your doc to get listed in the References section, then refer to it within the document. &mdash;TedPavlic (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am confused by your first point, and I utterly fail to see how it applies to our present discussion &mdash; except perhaps that referring to another user as "obnoxious" might be perceived as incivil. I'm inclined to let the whole issue of who has been incivil to whom drop if you are: disagreement does not necessarily imply a lack of civility, and in disagreements over electronic media, misunderstandings intent and tone can lead to mistaken conceptions.  On to your second point, this is perhaps an idiosyncratic use of the term "References": perhaps you are thinking of its more restricted use in software engineering?  Our own manual of style includes an example of a "General reference" &mdash; one which, indeed, is not explicitly "referred to" in the text.  There is broad agreement in academia that a reference list or bibliography should at a minimum include any sources that were used in constructing the text.  An editor writing an article may so designate a general work as a reference used in the writing process.  These must not be relegated unthinkingly to a "Further reading" section; at a minimum, they must be included in a "References" or "Bibliography" section.  If there are not enough citations for your liking, then improve them.  As a last resort, flag the article and use the fact tag as needed.  But do not remove sources from a references list purely because they do not pass stylistic muster.  Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a style issue. A "reference" placed randomly in a reference list (perhaps in an ugly way beneath an existing reflist) is ambiguous at best and misleading at worst. In academia, we cite. Maybe it's unique to my field, but I know of no journal that doesn't have a line in their instructions to authors like "All listed references must be cited in the text." It's sloppy and lazy for an editor to list a reference without giving a citation. Changing "References" to "Further reading" encourages the original authors to generate those citations and encourages other editors to remove claims that have no evident citation. That's why typically when I change a "References" to a "Further reading," I also add a no footnotes. &mdash;TedPavlic (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The obvious rejoinder is that while most journals require as part of their house style that references must not appear unless they are cited in the text, it is clearly not part of Wikipedia's house style. Nor is Wikipedia a publisher of original thought, so the needs of specific attribution are generally less on Wikipedia than in a scientific journal.  Secondly, this is definitely a style issue:  Removing something clearly intended by the author of the article as a reference for the content purely because there wasn't a footnote in some random place is making a decision based on the style of the referencing, no?  "General referencing" still counts as referencing, although obviously footnotes (or, what I prefer, Harvard references) are preferable.  Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Footnotes states that additional explicitly numbered references under a   tag are mistakes that should be converted to "ref" tags (or moved). I'm suggesting that your convention encourages people to mix "ref" tags and explicit references, which is clearly not encouraged by WPMOS. Your convention lacks consistency. &mdash;TedPavlic (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. Perhaps I should have said that I generally agree on the need to keep numbered footnotes separate from the "References" list.  At Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, I have proposed "Bibliography" as an alternative.  Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Layout discusses why "Bibliography" is deprecated (though not prohibited). &mdash;TedPavlic (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The References section on Footnotes gives an example. I'll give another one here. Let's say a page initially uses uncited references, and so the reference section looks like..."== References == * Doe, John. 'A reference.' 2009."...then, later, people start adding in-line references with ref tags. That leads them to change the references section to be"== References ==    * Doe, John. 'A reference.' 2009."...or, even worse,"== References ==    # Doe, John. 'A reference.' 2009."...or..."== References ==     * Doe, John. 'A reference.' 2009."...or..."== References ==     # Doe, John. 'A reference.' 2009."All three of these look awful; they mix number order, numbering type, font, etc. The only remedy (at the moment) is to go and FIND A WAY to cite the old reference. However, without consulting the old reference directly and then parsing through the Wikipedia article, it's impossible to know where to add a citation. So, without an "unreferenced references" or an "uncited references" section, it's better to advise people to always use explicit citations. &mdash;TedPavlic (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

yes, the video has value
I see in your niggly little edit of Buck–boost transformer you mention "does this video really have any value?"

Well I suppose for a ultra-elite technical engineer like yourself it might seem below you to have any examples of such things on Wikipedia, but the general public may be interested to know what these powerline devices are along the road.

It took some major amount of effort on my part to even make that short video clip in the first place. Thanks for making me feel like shit for trying to contribute and add value to the project. Until I created that section this week, there was nothing but a single sentence on wikipedia about powerline buck-boost transformers. But if you think you can do better, please do so.

Also if you can get real photos of the dairy farm step saver to replace my hand drawn illustrations that would be great, too. DMahalko (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that I didn't remove the video. I was just suggesting that in its current placement, the "general public" isn't going to recognize its value. It would be beneficial to integrate it into the article better with at least some words focusing the viewer's attention on the salient features of the video. At the moment, a lay person may have difficulty knowing what to look at. At the moment, a lay person will not gain much over what they've already gained by driving down any rural road. Certainly the production of the video involved a great deal of work on your part, and I'm sorry that I didn't recognize that, but at present its contribution–production work ratio is lower than it probably should be. However, I think that ratio could be improved, and that's the point of my comment. &mdash;TedPavlic (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Due to the fact that the Commons is usable by any language version of wikipedia I don't see a way to put subtitling in the video that is compatible across the world. I will attempt to improve the description text below the video. DMahalko (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. Regarding overlays, they don't have to be textual. Ovals or arrows directing the user to what is supposed to be noticed might be useful. You might posted a note on Talk:Buck–boost transformer to get suggestions there. &mdash;TedPavlic (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

About the Template:EquationRef
Hello, very recently I got interested in the EquationRef template: it would be interesting to add a bit of space (say, the size of a TAB, for example) even when the equation number (or reference) is placed before the equation. Is it possible to modify according to this requirement? Best Regards, Daniele.tampieri (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The original author of EquationRef is User:Jkasd; however, your question is best put on Template talk:EquationRef. I'll copy it there and give a response. &mdash;TedPavlic (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Annoying?
Why you say It's annoying when the theorem is specified in terms of "highest frequency."? Shannon's dead, and you find his theorem annoying? What a strange reaction from a student studying this stuff. Dicklyon (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you read the paper? First, note that the "quote" in the Nyquist-Shannon theorem article is a paraphrased version of the quote in the actual Shannon paper; either the original wording should be used or some indicators should be added where the words have changed. Second, Shannon states specifically (just after Equation (7)) that:
 * "A similar result is true if the band does not start at zero frequency but at some higher value, and can be proved by a linear translation (corresponding physically to single-sideband modulation) of the zero-frequency case. In this case the elementary pulse is obtained from sin $x/x$ by single-side-band modulation."
 * Already, it's poorly understood (by the general public) that the Shannon condition given at the start of the Wikipedia article is a sufficient condition; however, the version starting the Wikipedia article (which is extremely strong) leads students to believe that a signal with 10kHz of bandwidth that happens to be modulated on a 500MHz carrier needs to be sampled at 1GHz at a minimum. Hence, we should follow Shannon's example and put the non-baseband version very close to the baseband version. After all, the non-baseband version is a trivial generalization of the baseband version. &mdash;TedPavlic (talk/contrib/@) 12:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've read it. I think the article covers that genralization already, doesn't it?  But we also quote Shannon's theorem.  The conditions for the more general cases are much more complex, and would require a few more complicated corollaries.  If you find those, we could add them, too.  I just checked the paper (linked in the ref), and where it states "Theorem 1" is exactly what we have in the article, except that someone changed W to B and put parens around 2B to make it unambiguous.  It's not a paraphrase, it's Shannon's theorem as published. Dicklyon (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The article does cover the generalization, but it's buried so far down after so much that it might as well be a footnote. It could be incorporated into the explanatory sections that show the images of the frequency domain aliases. That is, the generalization. And, IIRC, Shannon uses "cps" instead of "hertz". &mdash;TedPavlic (talk/contrib/@) 16:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it has been changed back and forth between cps and hertz a few times. Since we don't really say it's a quote, I suppose it's OK to update the units and use a variable name to match the image; it's still his theorem as stated, which is the main topic of the articles.  Corollaries should be in subsections; if it's too de-emphasized, you can fix that; but don't mix it up with the main exposition.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

H_infty control
Hi! i saw your comments while rephrasing my words! i didn't undersand your comment! is there something wrong in the informations i have done or do you think some of them are not true?. regards مبتدئ (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The particular typos are common when someone is reading from text. The content on Wikipedia should not borrow words from other sources. If content is borrowed, it should be referenced. I have no problems with it; I just want to be sure it wasn't lifted from another text. Either way, it should be provided with a reference. &mdash;TedPavlic (talk/contrib/@) 13:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If i did a copy paste then normally there shouldnt be a lot of typo (because papers and books are usally corrected before publishing). Those were my words,"findings" and conclusion i came to after reading a lot of H_inty design litterature. regards! (by the way do you know whether one should weight the inputs to the controller when appending output filter? i guess the answer is no but i want to hear your opinion!). best regards مبتدئ (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You misunderstood. I didn't say you "copied and pasted." Once upon a time, books were printed, and people could type without looking at a keyboard. In those days, those particular typos were frequently encountered when people were reading from the printed text. &mdash;TedPavlic (talk/contrib/@) 15:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem Ted! What about the shaping filter? :) مبتدئ (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess I don't understand your question, and it sounds like what you're getting at would be context dependent. I'm not sure why you would want to filter the output of the feedback system. In general, your controller provides the desired closed-loop dynamics. I am not well versed in classical control, and so maybe that's the source of my misunderstanding. &mdash;TedPavlic (talk/contrib/@) 13:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Troublesome en and em dash templates
Neither should be used, I believe, since they result in wrong usage. I've raised the matter of spacing at both templates. Tony  (talk)  06:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with ndash. However, mdash should not be used. That being said, removal/changing mdash requires a great deal of work (i.e., must be done with assistance of a bot). These are all old issues. See the respective talk pages (i.e., the stuff above your additions). &mdash;TedPavlic (talk/contrib/@) 17:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Cheers, User:Nillerdk (talk) 08:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
I made a simple math error, thanks for correcting it.Glmory (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You've Got Mail
I sent you private mail via Wikipedia. kcylsnavS {screech} 14:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

A userbox for nerds
kcylsnavS 22:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please explain
I saw this edit of yours. And would like to know why you made it. In WP:DASH I didn't see any explanation. Please explain this to me. Debresser (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You may want to consult WP:HYPHEN (which is just above WP:DASH) for further clarification. A hyphen does not indicate a break in a phrase. A hyphen is used to indicate a compound modifier. In the edit, a dash was the desired punctuation. By WP:MOS and WP:DASH, an unspaced em dash would be appropriate or a spaced en dash. Because the original was a spaced hyphen, I converted it to a spaced en dash. The NBSP is necessary because for any spaced dash (or hyphen) to prevent lines from looking like lists when soft wrapped. I hope that helps. &mdash;TedPavlic (talk/contrib/@) 17:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to do this on a few hundred documentation pages, then. This is the first one to have it this way. And the simple reason is that "-" is a character on the keyboard, but "#&whatever" isn't. You may be right, but it's never going to be done this way. Debresser (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's done this way all over Wikipedia and is a codified part of WP:MOS. This isn't anything new. In fact, the short-hand WP:DASH can be found in countless minor edit comments. Additionally, even though I use &amp;ndash; because it's easier to type and seem self explanatory ("ndash" and "en dash"), the en dash (–) is the first symbol in the "Insert" menu at the bottom of every Wikipedia edit page. It's right next to the em dash (—) which has other commonly used symbols nearby (e.g., °). So even if you have a problem with the &amp;-codes (i.e., HTML entities), there should be no problem using the right punctuation because it's so easy to add from the edit page. Having said all of that, whether or not it is necessary to include the non-breaking space (&amp;nbsp;) is still a matter of debate on Wikipedia. It doesn't hurt, but it is not a necessary part of WP:MOS. &mdash;TedPavlic (talk/contrib/@) 21:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all of this information. Now let me try it "–" and "—", that is using the edit bar. Thanks again. Debresser (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC) (also signed with the edit bar, I'm beginning to like this)

Optin
Please "Optin" here so we can review your editing history more efficiently for your RfA. Thanks My76Strat talk  21:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the reminder. &mdash;TedPavlic (talk/contrib/@) 22:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Closed RfA
Hi TedPavlic. I'm sorry to say I've closed your RfA per WP:SNOW. I've watched quite a few RfAs and felt that not only had it gone far enough, but that you were no longer receiving useful criticism. I just wanted to take this moment to re-assure you that RfA has very little effect on any other areas of Wikipedia and there's unlikely to be any repercussions to any of your work. Furthermore, there were positive comments about your work, and I think it is likely that if you participate more in administrative areas of wikipedia, along with showing a little more sustained activity, I see no reason why you would not be able to become an administrator in the future. Commiserations for now, and good luck for the future. WormTT &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I was surprised by WP:SNOW over WP:NOTNOW, but I suppose the conversation was going nowhere fast, and I was getting turned off by now the sausage was made. I really just wanted to extend editing to things like templates that others had seem to have forgotten about over time... I guess that will have to wait. It just looks like I'll have to make Wikipedia more of a full time job if I want to elevate my contributes to it, and I don't think I can afford that level of volunteering (at least WP:NOTNOW). &mdash;TedPavlic (talk/contrib/@) 17:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I didn't think you were that inexperienced (WP:NOTNOTNOW), but I could see the way it as headed. I don't think you'll need to up your contribution levels massively, 5-10 edits per day is considered active, so one good day a week should get you there. But there's lots you can help out on in wikipedia, you don't need to be an admin to do it. Let me know if there's anything I can ever do. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 19:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I know I opposed you RfA, but  there was absolutely  nothing  personal. As a very experienced editor who  was promoted to  sysop after a particularly  scathing  'interview' I know how anyone feels after their examination  whether they  passed or not. I feel sure that  if you  can address the points over time, you  may  wish  to  have a second go  when you  have participated in the areas where admins are expected to  be active. In the meantime here is some reading for you, Unfortunately at the present time, we have no efficient  way  of drawing  the attention  of potential  candidates to  these pages before they  attempt  to  run for office. Best wishes, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Advice for RfA_candidates
 * NPP
 * RfA reform 2011/Candidates
 * Thanks for the tips. Next time, maybe I won't be so WP:BOLD to nominate myself. Meanwhile, more visibility into the admin process might help others thinking about elevation. &mdash;TedPavlic (talk/contrib/@) 17:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well this sucks. I was intentionally as far away from a computer as possible this weekend. So when I logged in to check the watchlist, all I saw was your RfA closed per snow. I don't like weekend snow closures for this very reason, there is a certain class of editors that do not spend the weekends on computers and they might be inclined to support where others would oppose. Sorry to see you got snowballed. Don't let it get to you, and next time start your RfA on a Monday =-). Dave (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This goes along with the sausage comment above. I wouldn't have thought that DoW would have made that much of a difference, but that's valuable advice if I ever think about this again. Thanks for your comments and support. &mdash;TedPavlic (talk/contrib/@) 17:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ditto! I think that your next RfA statement (may in 3 months) should specify that you want to continue to focus on content, but that you would like to help out more and would like to get the tools. You should ask Geometry guy to nominate you, and also somebody like Pedro or Worm that Turned, who has mentored a lot of the young administrators who focus on administrators-dominated noticeboards. I would ask Geometry guy for advice, if I were you.
 * (If the spirit moves you, maybe you could add something to the vector measures article, which has a section on Lyapounov's theorem and a sentence or two on bang-bang controls.)
 * Best regards, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll keep an eye on User:Geometry guy and take a look at vector measure (which looks to need a little growth anyway). Best &mdash;TedPavlic (talk/contrib/@) 14:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks: I would ask one or more of them to nominate you, as noted. You might also consider asking for feedback on your acceptance statement, before-hand. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join Stanford's WikiProject!
ralphamale (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo Reference account is approved
Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
 * If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
 * Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
 * Show off your Credo access by placing on your userpage
 * If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Your Credo account access has been sent to your email!
All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email. If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. I hope you enjoy your account! User:Ocaasi 15:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
 * If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email! If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia). Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
 * 2) Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code.  Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
 * 3) Create your account by entering the requested information.  (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
 * 4) You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID.  (The account is now active for 1 year).
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
 * Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
 * Show off your Questia access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=573820062 your edit] to Myrmecocystus mexicanus 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]. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

IEEE technical societies
If you are a member of one or more of the IEEE technical societies, you may wish to identify yourself as such on Wikipedia. I’ve created Wikipedian categories for each of the 38 IEEE technical societies. The new Template:User IEEE member creates a userbox identifying the society and your membership grade and includes your user page in the relevant Wikipedian category. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a note. Yours aye, Buaidh  20:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC) — IEEE Life Member

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Introducing the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology!
Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 663 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in evolutionary biology.
 * Browse the new WikiProject page
 * Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You're invited! Great Buckeye Wiknic 2016


Hello there! You are invited to attend the Great Buckeye Wiknic in Columbus, Ohio on Sunday, July 10th from 1:00 to 5:00 PM! Join us for a day in the park for food and socializing with others from the Wikimedia movement. We'll be meeting up at Fred Beekman Park, a park on Ohio State University's campus.

If you're interested, please take a look at our events page for more information, including parking info, food options, and available activities. If you plan on attending, please add your name to the attendees list. We look forward to seeing you!

If you have any questions, feel free to leave one on my talk page. Thanks! ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 05:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

(Note: If you would like to stop receiving notifications regarding Wikimedia events around Ohio, you may remove your username from this list.)

Invite to the African Destubathon
Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most geography, wildlife and women articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 55 African countries, so should be enjoyable! Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African wildlife articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance. If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing any article related to a topic you often work on, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Might be a good way to work on fleshing out articles you've long been meaning to target and get rewarded for it! Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Notmuch
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Notmuch. zazpot (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to take a look at our first article
Hi!

We are students writing an article on Colors of Biotechnology as part of our class Academic Discourse and Writing at Tec de Monterrey. Since you are an experienced Wikipedian and have interest in these kind of topics, we would like you to know if you could take a few moments to take a look at the article and give us feedback. Thank you for your time. --Nahomi Alonso (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)