User talk:Zvika

I will reply on this page unless you request otherwise. Please watch this page if you comment.

Ein Hatzeva
Hi Zvika, As the main contributor to he:תמר המקראית, please see the discussion page there. Amnon s (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! I will respond there as soon as I get a chance. --Zvika (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for review of Global Positioning System
Zvika, the GPS article has been put up for peer review. Would you like to review as much of the article as interests you and provide your comments? We hope you are able to help us out. RHB100 (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

'Vandalism' reverts
Please watch out when you revert for vandalism; I'm not sure that these two edits were vandalism, for example. The IP might have been quoting from the part of the speech Obama was speaking at the time the photo was taken, i.e. a 'caption' in the other sense, (though there'd need to be some actual reason for believing that's really the correct quote). The edit might not have been very well thought out, but probably not done maliciously. —AySz88\^ - ^ 20:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's stretching AGF a bit. --Zvika (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought a bit more about this.. maybe you're right that the intention was not vandalism, but I still think an unquoted, uncited sentence was worse off. I guess I should have reverted without claiming it was vandalism. --Zvika (talk) 07:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see Talk:Autoregressive model. Albmont (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding my recent edit to the Cramer-Rao article
Oops. Somehow when I read the page originally I thought I saw a strictly greater than sign rather than a \ge (which indeed is equivalent to \geq). Humorously, I didn't have the extra line under the > visible because I had scrolled down just before that point. I also somehow didn't notice the latex \ge is identical to \geq. I'm reverting my change now as it's pointless. Thanks for catching that. --Tekhnofiend (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Fisher information
Thanks for fixing my error. I was a bit too enthusiastic in pointing out everywhere that the expectation is with respect to P(X|theta). Of course, that does not apply to the dervative :-D. Tomixdf (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I figured that was it. Cheers, --Zvika (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

wikibooks
Something similar to what you want was my initial intention with Famous Theorems of Mathematics but the resultant turned out to be a big mess! In my experience such a repository of proofs is not a textbook per se, and does not qualify to be a wikibook unless systematically organized so that it is a comprehensive whole for a reader. I personally think the only really practical option would be to start a proof wiki. Regards-Shahab (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That is really a shame since it would have been best to keep all these proofs within a Wikimedia project. Would transferring a bunch of unrelated proofs to Wikibooks really cause such an uproar among Wikibooks people, do you think? --Zvika (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It won't be a problem as long as the proofs are properly organized to make the collection look like some sort of proof glossary. In my experience that is not an easy task. Feel free to take up the challenge. Also see this link for some related information. You can also start a proof wiki within wikimedia by requesting one here.Regards-Shahab (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the policy for creating new wikis is intended for something bigger than what we (currently) have. We are currently talking about maybe several hundred proofs, and I doubt there will be sufficient enthusiasm for anyone to give monthly reports to the board, etc. So I think I will try to transfer some existing proofs to your book, and see what happens. --Zvika (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually I don't believe that anyone on wikibooks other then me is monitoring the famous theorems of mathematics page. So it's likely that your additions will get unnoticed for some time by other contributors there. But as the original author of the book I certainly have a few reservations about adding proofs in that book without any categorization and in an unorganized fashion. Remember that wikibooks is about books, not about repositories. A book is supposed to have a compactness which your efforts might destroy(no disrespect intended). Also if other wikipedians don't take an interest in adding proofs there, which I seriously believe is going to be the case, then the resultant module will be neither here nor there.(Back when I started the book with the name The Book of Mathematical proofs, I posted a suggestion on wikipedia regarding posting of proofs there, but many wikipedians quite rightly pointed out the practical problem of the giganticity of such a task and the resultant mess the book was likely to become.) I still believe that the best option would be to start a proof wiki. If no one is sufficiently interested in taking the lead then people can add proofs on an existing proofwiki here, and a template can be added in the relevant articles linking to that proof. Even if its not part of wikimedia, the purpose to the reader will be served, and that's what is really important. Another option, though not a better one, would be to add proofs on wikiversity, which is at least supposed to contain educational material and not books.


 * P.S. I too tried to add a proof on the existence of logarithm page once, it is at present on Talk:Logarithm. If you do work out some solution towards this whole issue please include that proof as well. Thanks and regards-Shahab (talk) 08:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of rollback
Why did you elect to use rollback on this edit? It doesn't appear to be vandalism. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. The article didn't exist in Bicol Central when I checked, apparently because of a database lag (it was only created shortly before), so I thought someone was just playing around. Will be more careful next time. --Zvika (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ethernet review
Are you available to do a an informal peer review of Ethernet? --Kvng (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think I will have time for this, sorry. --Zvika (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Cleanup

 * }

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC
You are invited to comment on the following probability-related RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians
You have been mentioned at Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Vegetation condition index moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Vegetation condition index, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Vegetation condition index
Hello, Zvika. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Vegetation condition index, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Vegetation condition index


Hello, Zvika. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Vegetation condition index".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 20:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

"Pythagoras's theorem proof (rational trigonometry)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pythagoras%27s_theorem_proof_(rational_trigonometry)&redirect=no Pythagoras's theorem proof (rational trigonometry)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 05:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

implicit ellipse from a general bivariate quadratic equation
Hi @Zvika. Thanks for adding a source to Ellipse. Unfortunately the equation provided at Mathworld is not actually correct (it typically gives an angle to the minor axis instead of the major axis). I swapped it out for the simpler and more legible $\theta = \tfrac12 \operatorname{atan2}(-B,\, C-A).$ You can see how this works at https://www.desmos.com/calculator/xfgiydfi2b (if you type any of the previous variants into that calculator view, you can compare them). –jacobolus (t) 19:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jacobulus! I agree this formula is correct and much cleaner. --Zvika (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)