My Talk Archives

Archive 1

		The Nepal Barnstar of National Merit
		Thanks to all your contributions to WikiProject Nepal articles, specially those made to Bhimsen Thapa.-- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 09:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit unexpected. Thank you very much. I thought nobody even reads that article. Manoguru (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Manoguru. Recently, I have edited the article Chandra Shumsher JBR intensively. I bear witness to how you have transformed the Bhimsen Thapa page, and no doubt, you are the best editor I can find to review the article now. I don't know how I should formally send you a peer review request, so please consider it as a request to review the article.Uttamjkl (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be my pleasure to take a look. I am happy that more people share my enthusiasm for history. Manoguru (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking the time to review the article and for the suggestions. The advice you left on my talk page is incredibly helpful, and I assure you that I will try my best to follow them. Once again, thank you and best of luck with editing. Uttamjkl (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the article Nepal is involved in a GA nomination. While I am not the nominator, given the breadth of the article, I am assisting. I request your assistance to as I see that you are a primary contributor to the article. Lets make this article a Good one! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi QatarStarsLeague, I am quite aware of the GA nomination of that article. And I am puzzled that anyone in right mind could even want to nominate that article as it stands now. How might I be of help to you? Manoguru (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is in poor shape. I am not sure why the nominator chose to enter into the GA process in its current state. I figure that the nominator might motivate a collective of some editors to rework the article, and bring it to GA status. "What better time than now?" is my thought on the matter. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the user page of the young man who nominated the article, he seems like a wiki novice. Sure, you can count me in, if I can be of any help. Manoguru (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Manoguru,
I have noticed that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! 220 of ^Borg 15:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I will try to keep that in mind. I am just wondering if any of my recent edit annoyed someone. I normally leave edit summaries on articles that are actively edited by many other editors. But on pages where I am the sole active editor, I don't bother. Anyway, thanks for the reminder. Manoguru (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please summarize your edits. It helps other editors know what you are doing. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. But please grow up, and stop reverting my edits solely for this reason. It is bordering on harassment. If you have problem with the content, then please discuss in the talk page. If you have problem with the citation, then put up a citation required tag. If you are just cursorily monitoring the article using one of the monitoring gadgets, and don't bother reading the actual edits, then I cannot help you. If you cannot create content, then stop punishing other who do. An article is not your personal fiefdom. Manoguru (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bhimsen Thapa you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Royroydeb -- Royroydeb (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your troubles, good sir! Manoguru (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bhimsen Thapa you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bhimsen Thapa for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Royroydeb -- Royroydeb (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pearson's chi-squared test, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jacobian. 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) 11:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I happened upon the article Bhimsen Thapa, the rating, the review, your deserved barnstar, that you need to create a section for on your user page because I think you are deserving of more, and am just making inquiries.

I noticed you took a "step back" and certainly understand that, but with your diligence, perseverance, and a little more work, I have taken the position that you (if soon to be re-interested) could certainly achieve FA status for this article.

I have been an editor for a good while, gave only one review (it didn't pass, was an interesting voyage, but gave me a virtual lifelong headache), maybe a couple of barnstars, and have an "All things Wikipedia" interest in learning new things. You have taken a name out of history and through hard work I feel made a fantastic article. I do hope you can find a spark to ignite the fire, and return to this article.

I am quite sure this is the first time I have ever made such a "request" but I feel it is necessary as well as important. To me FA status is a milestone of achievement in itself and would be like stopping a race at the finish line, when the clear leader and winner, when lacking only a few more steps to win. I suppose it is a good thing Wikipedia has a "pause" button. I could go on but fear too much praise might either bore you or give you the "big head". I just figured you might find an interest in hitting the "play button" and see if you can take the few more steps and win. Have a great day, Otr500 (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. I thought nobody really read that article, even though I think the person is very interesting. To be frank, I had to pause because real life took over. I worked on that article when I took a very long holiday back to my home country. Now that I'm not there, I don't have any of my references to continue that work, except maybe for a few ones found online. However, I do plan to return to that article sometime in the future and nominate it for FA status. Do you have any specific suggestions for improvement? Manoguru (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was tied up a few days myself but I will take a closer look at the article in the next few days. Otr500 (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great!! Thank you very very much!! Manoguru (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Manoguru. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Per Template:Reflist#Columns anything with reflist 2, 3, 4 is deprecated. I've been going through and changing them to 20em, which produces the same result as reflist|4; reflist|30em, which does 3 columns; and reflist|35em for 2 columns. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 21:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah!! Thanks for the explanation. I thought it was just an aesthetic choice. Manoguru (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Modular arithmetic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lagrange's theorem. 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) 09:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Manoguru, I am pleased to see what you have done to Bhimsen Thapa article. You are a great Nepali editor. But the pages of personalities like Kalu Pande, Shivaram Singh Basnyat, Amar Singh Thapa, Abhiman Singh Basnyat, Balbhadra Kunwar, Bamsa Raj Pande are all too poor. Mulkazi Swaroop Singh Karki donot even have a page. Thus, I am requesting you to improve articles on other chief Nepalese historical personalities like Basnyat Mulkazis, Pande Mulkazis and sundry military men who were significant in the Unification of Nepal as well as Anglo and Chinese War. Airkeeper (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your appreciation. I was mainly interested in Bhimsen Thapa because to understand why Nepal is the way it is today, it is very important to understand what happened during his time. I am not much interested in other personalities you mentioned, although they were important too. Had I still been in Nepal I may have worked on the article on Jung Bahadur. Since I am not, I don't have any of my books and references. If you are interested in history, then I strongly recommend you to read some of the references I have cited. Baburam Acharya's books are widely available, cheap, and very well written. I would recommend the book "Nepal ko Mahabharat" by Gyanmani Nepal too. Also, you should think of getting a user account. Manoguru (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Don't wait for some editor to write an article you want to read. The whole point of Wikipedia is to be able to write the articles you are interested in by yourself.

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. I would respect your choice of subject matter. The reason I requested you was that I'm unaware about which book or articles on Nepalese history contains very reliable information since I read a few and met with huge contrast among them. I will be going through the books suggested by you. Airkeeper (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC) Casually speaking, I can never write with such details and brilliance as yours. Haha!!! Airkeeper (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are serious about wanting to know more about Nepalese history, then you should avoid reading school books, since they are most often propaganda. You should also beware that every historian has their own bias. Nevertheless, I guess Baburam Acharya is the best place to start, since he is a serious historian of excellent calibre. He often produces documentary evidences for his claims. But you should also be cautious, since there are places where he makes an educated guess. In such passages, he uses words like "perhaps" or "maybe", which you should look out for. Apart from him, you should also read a number of later historians, since Baburam Acharya does not get everything right all the time, or new evidences may have come to light. Baburam Acharya is a "nationalist" historian, who engages in grand narratives of "great men". However, there are other methods of historical analysis as well. For instance, Mahesh Chandra Regmi is "economic" historian, in the sense that he looks at economic forces that affects history. In a way, it is the history of people in their everyday activity. I have had the pleasure to read and cite both these men's work. I hope you get the same pleasure doing so. I think the best way to write history articles on Wikipedia is to read a bit, write a bit, and repeat again and again until you can add no more, rather then trying to write the entire finished article in a single go. Manoguru (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in history, but gained deeper insight based on your perspective. Thanks. nirmal (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of some use :) Manoguru (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow such an advice. Nah not school books I don't believe them (pro-Shah books), even hard to believe when some writers like Bhuwan Joshi or Eden Vansittart wrote erroneous. And regarding anthropology, is Dor B. Bista and Surya M. Adhikari reliable writers?? Just to know bcoz you sound knowledgeable person. Airkeeper (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much knowledge on anthropology. Anthropology is not an exact science, although it aspires to be one. So it should be should be judged by the same standards as any other scientific discipline. It doesn't really matter which author you read. You should always have a healthy dose of scepticism for all of them, no matter how convincing their arguments. Also, you should check 1) if the author provides hard evidence to support their thesis, 2) if the thesis follows from the evidence, 3) if there are any other alternative explanations apart from their thesis. A good scholar considers all these three points. Although they seem like common sense, even the best scholars sometimes make hasty generalisation with little or no evidence. As such, you should read more than one author about a given issue before you can make up your own mind. I think reading just one author is the same as intellectual suicide. Regarding errors, I must say that every scholar makes errors. At best, they are due to insufficient data, at worst it is systemic. So although you may start out by reading older works to get a feel of the subject, you should eventually read more modern ones that corrects for biases and evidences.

If you are really interested in anthropology, then you have no choice but to start from somewhere. Dor B. Bista is a reputed scholar. But just as I suggested with Baburam Acharya, take his writings with a pinch of salt. Here is a review of Dor B. Bista's book "Nepal´s Struggle for Modernization" https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20130318210758/http://himalmag.com/component/content/article/3135-Fatal-Myth--A-critique-of-fatalism-and-development.html You can find so many mistakes he makes. Manoguru (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can different genealogies cross checked with each other form an evidence themselves?? Paudel, Aryal, Malla and Thapa genealogies connect to Kalu Thapa and xg Airkeeper (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and scholar like Yogi Narahari Nath and Surya Mani Adhikari have also written about the same man. Airkeeper (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I personally find genealogies the least interesting part of history. Surely you can cross check. If there are inconsistencies, then best to state it explicitly. Manoguru (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But that proves the existence of a person?? Airkeeper (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bore you. If the two different genealogies matches, would it be a part of evidence?? Since these genealogies doesn't seem to connect to India like the biased genealogies of Rana and Shah dynasty or commoners like Pokharels, Lama Karki or Shripali Basnet. I think those genealogies are very persuasive evidence because of lack of Indian bias which is common in Nepali Hindus. Airkeeper (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you are talking about. Why should the existence of a person be based on genealogy? Manoguru (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello, Manoguru. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". – I see quite a few significant content additions marked as minor by you. Such edits are definitely not minor. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		For your very high quality work on the magic squares page. It was high time somebody cleaned up and polished that busy page. Great job!

Thanks! This was very unexpected. But I still have a long way to go; and I am not very regular at editing it either. Manoguru (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. But it is so much better than it was. Remember the old saying, "The perfect is the enemy of the good."

Thank you very much for the encouragement. Manoguru (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manoguru -- Could you take a look at the usage "normal magic square" on the magic squares page. I am not sure if "normal" is ever clearly defined. The usage is especially confusing in the sentence, "He showed that it is impossible to have normal singly-even pandiagonal magic square."

BTW, keep up the great work!--Toploftical (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the term "normal magic square" has been defined in the 3rd paragraph of the opening passage of the article. It has been defined as the magic square made of integers 1, 2, ... , n². I have seen a few articles and book that define it as regular magic squares too. But I think the definition can be clarified. I have tried to update it. Manoguru (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I love the way you keep cleaning up this page. It used to be such a disorganized mess. Good work!--Toploftical (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. The articles is finally pretty much where I wanted it to be when I started editing it. There are still a few more stuff I would like to add, like the 20th century history and a bit more about the medjig method. Hopefully I will get the time and energy to finish it. Manoguru (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following your burnishing of the Magic Squares page. You are so amazing!--Toploftical (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the encouragement. Covid-19 has given me quite a bit of free time. :) Manoguru (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manoguru - Your recent edit to Magic square page is likely to be removed yet again by editor David Epstein. See this Magic square: Difference between revisions for what I am talking about. I tried moving this very interesting material to the page Associative magic square but he promptly removed that also. He seems to principally object because he considers it original research. See the particularly sharp comments he left on my talk page (the very last paragraph in User talk:Toploftical#Magic Squares). --Toploftical (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Toploftical, Thanks for pointing this out. The row/column swapping transformation related to associative magic square is not new. You can find it mentioned in https://nrich.maths.org/1338/1338 although you have to read between the lines, since the author does not mention that the transformation works only for associative magic square. It is more explicitly given in https://budshaw.ca/Associative.html (see the section on transformation). Manoguru (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manoguru: Since your NRICH citation appears to be new, why not cite it? At first I thought it was just another blog (WP frowns on blogs as refs) but then I see it is associated with The University of Cambridge. Originally when David Epstein removed your new material he said, "remove: belongs in associative magic square if anywhere, not here, and is completely unsourced." When I took his hint and tried to move it to associative magic square, he (somewhat hypocritically in my opinion) promptly removed that too. Frankly, I think that is actually where your new section belongs.--Toploftical (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion! I will do that! BTW, yesterday I just found a reference discussing Fermat's way of constructing magic squares, which I have referenced in the article. It is the most fascinating thing to read. Manoguru (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Manoguru. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manoguru. I don't know how much detail is appropriate in an encyclopedia. There is a lot here on bordered squares already. Perhaps concentric squares should have a separate Wikipedia page as do associative, pandiagonal, etc. Or, perhaps order 5 should have a separate Wikipedia page.

In 2010, I enumerated the 101,774,553 order 5 complement pair pattern groups, (like the Dudeney patterns for order 4). See http://budshaw.ca/Groups5.html

There is another group, similar to concentric, also with 174,240 squares. These I dubbed symlateral. The main diagonals and middle row and column have the same pattern as concentric. The other complement pairs are opposed in the same row or column instead of the opposite row or column.

The biggest group is 228,960 squares that are a hybrid of the concentric and symlateral patterns. See http://budshaw.ca/Groups5Center13.html

I don't know of any method for generating the concentric square borders other that by computer program. You can make all 174,240 order 5 concentric squares with program Order5Special at http://budshaw.ca/Download.html and convert them to bones with program Bones on the same page.S Harry White (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry, Thank you for the reply. My goal is to make the article a high quality reference point for anyone willing to learn the subject. While it is impossible to cover everything, I did want to give a proper coverage of history, some transformations, and some general construction principles, with proper references on where someone can learn more. Most book and websites I visit lack one thing or the two, with the history section being the most egregious. I agree with you that concentric squares should have its own separate page.

That being said, I went through your link on the groups of 5th order magic squares. I found it very fascinating. I guess a bar chart would be very helpful in understanding the table you provide. One thing that struck me was that the number of groups for a given group size is mostly even, while the group size is always even!! This can perhaps be explained by the fact that from a given magic square you can obtain another magic square by suitable row and column interchange. This will certainly preserve the group size, while doubling the number of groups with a given size. I tried performing (2,1,3,5,4) interchange of the rows and columns for groups with center 13. This basically interchanges the quadrants diagonally, while interchanging the half of middle row and column. This transformation shows that G2 = G3 and G4 = G5. Another transform I tried was (1,4,3,2,5) interchange of rows and columns on G41 and it gave me G42. Manoguru (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manoguru. I don't understand your reasoning with regard to group sizes.

Group size is always even because every square has a complementary square, (which is in the same group). However, this does not explain group G7 because associative squares are self-complementary. See http://budshaw.ca/SelfComplement.html Group G7 is even because each associative square transforms into 16 associative squares by swapping rows or columns. See Transforms at http://budshaw.ca/Associative.html

If you transform a group G2 square with Transforms1_2All at http://budshaw.ca/Download.html you get 2 group G2 squares and 2 group G3 squares. Similarly, from a group G3 square you get 2 group G2 squares and 2 group G3 squares. Transforming a group G1 square makes 4 group G1 squares, (and there is only 1 group with that number of squares).

Thanks for the bar chart suggestion. I'll look into it.S Harry White (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry. Sorry if I was unclear. Thank you for explaining the evenness of the group size. It was something that had not occurred to me at that time. My line of reasoning however pertained to the evenness of the number of groups of a given size, rather than the evenness of the size of a given group. My basic point was that there may (must?) exist a transformation that explains the evenness of these numbers. For instance, from you list for squares with center 13, group size 174,240 has two groups, G2 and G3. Now, I was not willing to believe that it could be a matter of mere coincidence that two very different looking groups could have exactly the same number of squares. So when I tried to interchange the quadrants diagonally (see to the last bullet point on this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_square#For_any_magic_square), I got the equivalence between G2 and G3 that I desired. Since we can only derive one other square from an original square by this transform, if we map Gx => Gy this way (where Gx and Gy are two distinct groups), then the size of both the groups should be the same due to the one-to-one correspondence of this transform. Hence this explains the double in the number of groups of size 174,240. Same goes for G4 and G5. Best Regards, Manoguru (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manoguru: Ah yes, thanks for that explanation. S Harry White (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I don't think the combination of Transform 1 and 2 will not produce this particular transform. Manoguru (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S I was wrong about Transforms 1 and 2 not producing diagonal interchange transform. :) Manoguru (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Labor Day. See my new remarks on my talk page--Toploftical (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manoguru Thanks for finally accepting my edit. There are a few misguided and unscholarly Tamil enthusiasts who resourcefully albeit foolishly try to claim Tamil etymology for everything Sanskrit due to a reactionary sociolinguistic attitude kicked up by one Devanesan also known as Pavanar whom you can look up in Wikipedia itself. It has taken a life of its own and so this AjIvikA Tamil etymology instance we are dealing with. Neither Devanesan nor his followers know any bit of linguistics or Sanskrit or even common sense. They have become an embarassment to Tamil and are causing a huge and unnecessary confusion amongst Tamils due to their writings. What would be a common sense fact to even high schoolers has now been muddled due to these people. AjIvikA is absolutely a very transparent Sanskrit word from its composition from the root verb jIv- to live and with a prefix A- and the sequence of derivational and formative suffixes -ikA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perichandra (talk • contribs) 15:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification! Manoguru (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Namaste, Manoguru, and Happy Dashain!

WikiProject Nepal wishes you a wonderful Dashain filled with joy, love, and happiness.

Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great Dashain! Cheers.

Message sent by CAPTAIN MEDUSA on behalf of WikiProject Nepal.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Namaste, Manoguru! You are cordially invited to join the new WikiProject Nepal 10,000 Challenge

Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Nepal. You are invited to join the new WikiProject Nepal 10,000 Challenge, a challenge which aims to see 10,000 article creations. Articles on all related topics are welcome. We need numbers to make this work and do something extraordinary for Nepal on Wikipedia! Sign up on the page if interested and start contributing! If you know someone who might be interested, please invite them by using:

{{subst:WikiProject Nepal/The 10,000 Challenge Invite}} ~~~~ 

Thanks.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Help copy edit and removed template for acticle Akane Yamaguchi. Thanks you.171.247.210.89 (talk) 04:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]