User talk:Yosofun

Please don't "cut and paste" entire articles, like you've just done at tetanus. It destroys the history linking the authors of the article to their words. Use the move function instead. - Nunh-huh 08:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Nunh-huh, I did not know of the move function. Thanks for notifying me of this! -me (00:15, 7 Mar 2005 PST)


 * No problem, live and learn  - Nunh-huh 08:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Will do! :)


 * You do know that four tildes ( ~ ) will sign and date your messages, right? - Nunh-huh 08:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Still learning! (wowie!) - Yosofun 08:28, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Tetanus.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Tetanus.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 05:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

MathCad
I've reinstated the line about its use of a Maple-derived algebra engine, MKM. It's certainly true for my of copy of V7, and also for 2000i I read. Linuxlad 11:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you set up a new entry on the MKM? I admit I'm only a "frontend" user in the sense that I haven't yet had to worry about which kernal's being used--only that whatever math magic I input has an acceptable output. I was initially confused by what you meant because MathCAD and Maple's frontend input system (and even Mathematica's) seem completely different. (Yosofun 21:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC))

Re: Philica
(copied reply here to be sure you could see it)

Sorry, I meant that googling "philica" got about 500 hits. A little oddly, philica without quotes gets about 500, and "philica" with quotes gets about 2000 - although Philica also appears to be a surname. In any case, the website is still in beta per its FAQ, so I suspect having an article on it is a little premature. If you'd rather get other opinions the article can be listed at Articles for Deletion for discussion. Opabinia regalis 04:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no minimum number of Google references required for notability, or at least, I'm not aware of any in the Criterias. Also, Philica has been publicized on Nature, which you might know as one of the most mainstream scientific journal, read or skimmed by practically all scientists.  Seems pretty notable to me... Yosofun 05:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion info
Hi, this is regarding the Philica article deletion situation. It is not considered acceptable on Wikipedia to remove the AfD notice from an article. See Articles_for_deletion for an overall description of how the AfD deletion process works. I see you've been a Wikipedia editor for some time now, but perhaps you haven't dealt with Articles for Deletion before, so I'll sum it up. The AfD discussion goes on for 5 days, after which point an Administrator will review the discussion and decide what the consensus was, and then delete the article, or leave it alone, or do various other things with it (merging it, sending it to wikibooks, etc.). If the article is kept, then the administrator will remove the AfD template from the beginning of the article. It looks unlikely at this point that Philica will be deleted, but you need to wait for an administator to close out the discussion and remove the AfD stuff from the beginning of the Philica article. It's been more than 5 days now, but there is often a backlog and sometimes it takes a few more days until an Administator gets around to closing these things out. --Xyzzyplugh 23:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this clarification. This is not my first dealing with an AfD, though I admit I have only dealt with very few of those. I've seen that many-a non-administrators (other than myself) in the past have removed the AfD's (c/o deprod edit summary), and I was not aware that a foreign administrator had to waste her time with moderating disputes that have apparently been settled already. I'm going to remove the AfD again, though, since I can't seem to find the requirement of an Admin on the AfD page, and I specifically recall a discussion at Wikimania against such processes. (If this is a missight from my tired eyes, please point out the passage I have missed on the AfD page.) Like I mentioned earlier, if you have anything else to add to the REJECT reasons for Philica, please continue the assumed-closed discussion here. Also, I should mention that since your original reasons for notability did not meet the criteria for Deletion, the AfD tag did not belong on the article in the first place. Therefore, even if there is some sort of process requiring a moderator in the Deletion process, the task of judging the merit of this article ought not to waste that moderator's time.  (Yosofun 01:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC))
 * I think you may be confusing Proposed deletion with AfD. In proposed deletion, anyone may remove the Prod tag at any time if they disagree with it.  That is probably what you've seen, if you've seen people remove the deletion notice.  I'll repeat the fact that AfD notices are not ever supposed to be removed until the AfD debate has been closed.  See Template:Afd and look at the template, it clearly states not to remove the notice.  This is not just my opinion, this is the agreed upon process that everyone goes by.


 * Removing the template is bad for multiple reasons. First of all, it will not stop an article from being deleted, if that is what's going to happen.  If the Administrator who closes out the AfD debate decides to delete the article, it will be deleted, whether the notice is still on the article or not.  Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, removing the AfD template from the article keeps people who read the article from realizing that the article is up for deletion.  Therefore, removing the template may in fact make the article MORE likely to be deleted, as the people who are most interested in it may not be aware that its in danger of being deleted.  --Xyzzyplugh 13:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Policy aside, may I ask why you singled out the article for deletion in the first place, rather than listing it as a proposed deletion? It meets WP:WEB 1 and 3 from cursory glance, and it might have won an award so 2's probably in, too. Moreover, since when have Alexa rankings been a criterion for notability? I'd keep the AfD quirks in mind for future articles, if I encounter the notice again, but the tag's not needed now as the points for keep have been stated, and there does not seem a valid reason for Philica's deletion. (And... back to policy -- would you mind spending your time updating the AfD policy, making certain important points stand out -- such as deletion is independent of the presence of the AfD tag on page?) Yosofun 22:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Re. No consensus
It means there's no strong consensus to either delete or keep the article, and it therefore defaults to getting kept, but there's nothing to stop it from getting nominated again (as opposed to a 'keep'-result, where the article usually should not get nominated again with the same reasoning). In this case, I'm pretty sure someone will nominate the article for deletion again pretty soon unless its notability is clearly established, since the 'keep' comments had weak reasonings behind them and the article itself doesn't back them up. - Bobet 11:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * go back to where you started: boink
 * You can read more about notability at WP:N and WP:WEB. In this case, you should try to find reliable sources for the article. It currently only has links to their own website, with no reliable third-party information about what makes it so great. Since it's an online journal, you really shouldn't have trouble finding non-trivial mentions of it on the web. If there aren't any mentions, then it isn't notable and should be deleted, no matter how great you or someone else feels that Philica is. - Bobet 08:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a Nature link in the discussions page; as you might know, getting even a brief line in Nature is considered one of the highest forms of recognition in the world of academics. Does that not suffice? Yosofun 08:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikilogos
I thought you might be interested in my proposal for Wikipedia to use logo variations created by members of the wiki community to mark national and international awareness days, Remembrance Days, notable anniversaries, and observance days. Please comment on Village_pump_(proposals) and on my talk page. Thanks! FrummerThanThou 10:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Hadamard.gif
Thank you for uploading File:Hadamard.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is uncleahttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yosofun&action=edit&section=7r. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I created the Hadamard matrix (?) figure years ago as an undergrad. In general, when I neglect to cite, that's because I created it (and, mea culpa) thought less of myself as an author than contributor. Right, so it looks like the image was deleted -- I don't have the file anymore, since I've suffered from yearly hard drive failures due to cheap equipment back then.. :( (Yosofun (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC))
 * It has been restored but is still missing the source - just go to the image description page, edit & put the correct source information therein. You can remove the deletion template at the same time.  However, the image is easily replaced by using the math formula -see Help:Displaying a formula like this - Hope this helps.  Skier Dude  ( talk  01:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC):

$$H = \frac {1} {\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 1 \\ 1 & -1 \end{pmatrix} $$


 * It looks like the Hadamard Gate article context from 2004 has been vastly expanded upon, i.e., nxn matrix, instead of just the 2-space example. Both that and due to intrinsic Latex support in Wikipedia, the image is totally vestigial now! But, just for practice's sake - did I add my author release info right?  (72.254.62.122 (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC))

Speedy deletion nomination of APPNation
A tag has been placed on APPNation 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 an organization or company, 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of APPNation


The article APPNation has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Two-sentence stub about non-notable event. One reference, apparently to the event website, goes to an apparently unrelated website.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Hadamard.gif listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hadamard.gif, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Philica (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Chemical structure problems
I tagged File:MTL chem.png (now on commons) and File:Lincomycin synth.png (still on en.wp) for some structural problems. DMacks (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Lincomycin synth.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lincomycin synth.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ChemNerd (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)