Hello Robinh, welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for all your contributions. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

• MediaWiki User's Guide
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Noldoaran (Talk) 22:19, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

Hello and welcome.

Please note the highlighting convention: the title word or title phrase is highlighted at its first appearance. I have entered this correction at Boussinesq approximation and Richardson number. Michael Hardy 02:49, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi Robin

Those articles are really good, you're catching the Wiki bug! - I couldn't resist correcting a typo though - sorry ;-)

Anyway, I give in - what's SOC? I googled the two names and they're definitely mathematicians, but they're not in Southampton or perhaps I should say they weren't.

My maths days are long over - I graduated in 1980 - and I always tended towards pure maths. I've been in IT since, which is why I looked up your IP.

Spellbinder 16:54, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi Robin, your Logarithm homework help is not quite appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia such as this one, though similar articles and your services may be more better suited to a project like Wikibooks. Thanks Dysprosia 22:35, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

> Replied on my talk page Dysprosia 22:45, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi Robinh, I just found a site that might be another good place for pages like Logarithm homework help, the Know-How Wiki. It looks pretty new and I haven't checked it out in detail yet. Have fun! Tualha 00:41, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hello - you emailed me about the Euler's equation and Euler equations duplication. I'm not personally that bothered about the title; but it does look as if the former page's content should be merged into the latter's.

Charles Matthews 10:04, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think you might be exactly who I'm looking for to talk about the organization of the fluid dynamics pages. I'm trying to write aerodynamics (it's been a stub for a long time) and it's going really slowly. It's occuring to me that much of what I'm writing there really belongs in fluid mechanics (like the continuity assumption etc) but then aerodynamics would reduce to a simple "Aerodynamics is fluid mechanics applied to gases" and nothing else, which doesn't work for the importance of the topic. And I keep wanting to insert Bernoulli's equation, the Euler equations, the Navier-Stokes equations, even LaPlace's equation but of course they all have their own pages, so it would just be duplication. And yet nowhere do we have the fact that they are reductions of one another. Also, should I be making new pages for things like Prandtl's lifting-line theory or does it belong in aerodynamics? Anyway, let me know your thoughts, I've started a Wikipedia:WikiProject Fluid dynamics to get it going. moink 17:28, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! We should continue the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fluid dynamics. moink 19:43, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi Robin, I picked up your Red-fronted Serin, it's particularly useful to have contributions on birds from areas other than Europe and North America. The agreed convention is that bird species names are capitalised with a redirect from the lower case form, so to give consistency with the hundreds of other species accounts, I've moved the page and created the redirect. jimfbleak 06:37, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

to create a redirect, start from the page you have written, eg Syrian Serin. In the browser address box you will see http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Serin. Change this to http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_serin, (first word will be capitalised anyway) and press enter to open the new page. Type #redirect [[Syrian Serin]] and save.

The caps convention is somewhere, I'll post again when I find it! Jim

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna), or more clearly at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds Jim

Hi noticed your page and did the redirect to our existing page, with the correct spelling. By the way, the Lorentz force isn't Lorentz covariant, per se, but it does transform as the spatial components of a four-vector. Keep up the good work, though. -- Decumanus 22:28, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No problem. Happens to me too, those kinds of things. By the way, there is indeed a famous Edward Lorenz, who discovered the Lorenz attractor. -- Decumanus 22:35, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Robin. Can you tell me the address that you were working form that got blocked? Are you on AOL? RickK 14:52, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you knew the numbers, I could tell you why the account was blocked, but since you don't remember, I'm at a loss. Sorry. RickK 21:51, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nice work on Scientific Wager. Fun to read. - Tεxτurε 13:03, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello. What is the quantity you called m? Michael Hardy 17:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, I figured it out. You introduced that variable but only later in the article said what it is. Michael Hardy 18:47, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also, I've added this to list of statistical topics. Could you add them as you create them, and also add any others you know of that are not there? Thanks. Michael Hardy 17:57, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Based on the title of his book, shouldn't the page actually be titled the "Unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography? Guettarda

Halló Robinh, I saw the article and want to say Halló! At [1] the name is David Brée not Bree. I worked also on these squares and read about the work of Dame Kathleen Ollerenshaw and David Brée later. I was contacting Harvey Heinz some weeks ago but could not find the work of Ollerenshaw and Brée. Do you know where to get this book? I stoped working at [2] about four weeks ago. I generate only some straight forward patterns. Just take a look. Regards Gangleri 07:53, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

Halló Robin, Thank you for tha answer. You write: I know your webpage quite well! Do you mean the "linear" generion algorythm? Have you seen it somewhere before? [3] shows a good construction example. If you reload the page you will get another arbitrary square. I am not using an exhaustive method, I just place "the rigth values" arbitraryly at known "relevant positions". The code is (depending on the programming language) a few line only. For every position in the binary representation there is one if statement with asigns followed by an reasignment statement. Just look here and / or e-mail me.

I am aware of 8x8 squares having the property that min { a(i,j)+a(i,j+1)+a(i,j+2)+a(i,j+3) } <> max { (a(i,j)+a(i,j+1)+a(i,j+2)+a(i,j+3) } for every i and every j. Visualy there is no (shifted) horizontal axis where the half row sums are all the same. But the construction method its not as straight forward is in the implemented example.

I have never seen a 12x12 Most-perfect. Have you seen / generated one before? Where? / How?

Did you know, that the square [4] is showing 27 differnt subqueares with same row, column and diagonal sum?

I like visual patterns. For even number squares of order n I like to replace a'(i,j)=(2*n*n+1-2(a(i,j)) and work with odd numbers only. "Gott liebt die ungeraden Zahlen." is refered to Leibniz. The Kabbalah type 4x4 and one of the 8x8 mentioned there (?) givs two straight forwad patterns to. Both regarding the consecutive position of the odd numbers and their sign. Is it worth to show this as a construction method? Regards! Gangleri 09:48, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

Dear Robinh, thanks for your answer and the example. I moved your answer at User talk:Gangleri#Most perfect magic square (2). If you would post your messages at User talk:Gangleri I would be notified while loging in. Would you like to start writing an article [5]? Tanks! Gangleri 05:29, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)

Dear Robinh, I was reading lots of documentation pages about InterWiki links. I made a note at Talk:Most-perfect magic square. Could you please take a look at it? Thanks! Regards Gangleri 18:37, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)

I moved Most-perfect square to Most-perfect magic square and readjusted all links known to me. Regards Gangleri 15:24, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

Hello, I see you've just now "Wikified" the page on Jonathan Routh by providing a second link to John Glashan. This surprises me, as there was already a link to him. Or does the start of a new section trigger the need for (or at least desirability of) new links? (I'm new hereabouts, so I really don't know. I guess I could look it up, but I've had my fill of digging around the "Special" pages for one day.)

• Now I understand. Thank you!

Oh, er, sorry to digress, but can I interest you (or anybody) in my comment within Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia maintenance?

Thanks for any feedback. Hoary 09:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) Feedback received with thanks! Hoary 14:09, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Robinh, I've just written stuff about the excellent guidebooks by John Glashan and Jonathan Routh. I wasn't sure where to put it. Since the four can be described together, I was inclined to put them together, but I couldn't think of a good title for an article ("The Good Loo Guide et seq."?), and I certainly didn't want to create four articles. (As somebody who frequently uses a modem, I hate having to jump around short pages. I'd rather get a long page in a browser window, disconnect, and then read.) Although Glashan's contribution was considerable, it was less than Routh's, so I've put it in the article on Routh. Genius, however, is a different kettle of whatever: it's very much a solo production of Glashan's. I'd thus be inclined to fold both Anode enzyme and Genius (cartoon) into the article on Glashan. Another possibility would be to add a lot to Genius and fold "Anode Enzyme" into it. (Unfortunately all I know of "Genius" is what's reproduced in John Glashan's World.) Comments?

Incidentally, I have most of Glashan's books. Time permitting (and it won't for a month or so), I can say something about all of them. Hoary 04:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I merged Granular matter into your article Granular material, since i think Granular material is the better word. Have a look. Nice work on dry quicksand by the way, you beat me by 5 minutes in creating that article. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:08, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. And don't worry about the 5 minutes, happens all the time in wikipedia. I ususally save my progress every few sentences (and hence have a lot of edits), but I thoght who the heck would wanna write an article about dry quicksand. Guess now I know :P Happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 09:41, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (| talk)

Hi, Wikipedia:Edit summary says "Always fill the summary field." (emphasis in the original). Please fill in the Edit Summary when you edit an article, so the rest of us don't have to resort to a "diff" to see what you did. Thanks! Noel (talk) 23:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

... to "Bicycle". This section got bandied all over the place last year as editors waged war over just what does keep a bike up. It is now quite complete, and the article may be up to "featured article" level. Sfahey 15:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the compliments on the Weierstrass elliptic functions pictures. See, I hadn't clue that they were fractal; I very accidentally found out that something distantly related was fractal-ish, and followed the leads. Its very odd, to me, that books on chaotic dynamics, fractals, etc. never actually mention these ... but I am now the happier for knowing this. linas 05:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you read its discussion page or note the bold Bug notice someone added to the article, you'll see what I mean. 4.250.198.191 05:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, question & remark.

1) Have you been able to confirm that the theta_2 theta_3 etc. that you use in the Weierstrass invariants are consistent with the definitions used given in other articles? There's some mumble-words in the article on theta that make me wonder if all of these really are defined consistently. I mean, your usage may be correct, but I'm not convinced that all usage in Wikipedia is correct.linas 13:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2) The Weierstrass elliptic article is getting long. I'm thinking it may be time to chop it up. Maybe invariants should get its own page? Then we could have a real subsection called "numerical methods" or something like that. linas 13:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robinh, thanks much for discussing the article. Since I am interested to keep the article I have overworked it a bit and I have added an explanation to the vote list. I would be glad if you had another look. Thanks. -- Karsten88 15:20, 21 May 2005 (CEST)

As of April 2005, someone seems to have filled in the swiss roll (metamaterial) link with information about the "swiss roll" type of jelly roll. Would you be willing to replace this with information on the actual metamaterial you were describing? I don't have the optics expertise to write about it. --Christopher Thomas 20:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! William M. Connolley 19:35:18, 2005-08-04 (UTC).

Hi there. When using {{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}}, please remember to add the URL it is taken from like this:

{{db-copyvio|url= URL}}

otherwise, the admin has to guess and hunt where you spotted it. Thanks. -Splash^talk 00:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please comment on the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. C. Rousseau, whether our article on Cecil Rousseau should stay? I think you mentioned him at book (graph theory), which is where I got the idea that you might know something about his work. Thanks, Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please see my query in Talk:Dust (relativity). TIA ---CH (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robinh. I've undone your partial revert on the Shock_wave page, and I've added my reasons on the talk page of shock wave. it's not that I don't agree that I was too harsh in the first edit, but the quality of the original material was truly abysmal, and I think that some difficult decisions were necessary to prune out everything which wasn't 100% correct. AKAF 13:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, good work on Bulgarian solitaire, and thanks for the contribution. However, you did not provide any references or sources in the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. Can you list in the article any websites, books, or other sources that will allow people to verify the content in Bulgarian solitaire? You can simply add links, or see WP:CITET for different citation methods. Thanks! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 17:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking on the references. I don't know if you've been keeping track of the news, but wikipedia is comming under fire for having false information. Everybody is on the lookout! In that vain, I looked up Varma Division and I cannot find any confirmation of it either. A quick glance suggests that arguments are good, so my bet is that it is original research. I have nominated it here. Thanks for point that out! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robin. You mentioned you have the solution to this paradox months ago ,please quench my curisoty and expand the article..:) Diza 17:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Blockhead (October 1972). "Copyright: A Rejoinder". American Journal of Physics. 20: 75–83.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: year (link)

Hey what's up I just want you to know I deleted your two In Litrature sections of Door Furniture and Door Knockers, the reason I did this was because niethier seemed to have anything really to do with the subject and instead seemed to revolve around quotes you found in which Door knockers were used, I don't find this encyclapedic and it sets a bad example for other users. (We wouldn't want a Toilets in litrature section for example) Thanks for understanding. :) Deathawk 20:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:WeierstrassP.png. 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 Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

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. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 01:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All copyright tags can be found at WP:ICT --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 16:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 01:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Example section in Cramér-Rao inequality, you made an assertion about what the likelihood function is, that simply does not make sense unless normality is assumed. But you began by saying simply: let X be a random variable with expected value ___ and variance ___. That does not imply normality. Michael Hardy 03:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your "Semantics" section on the Division_ring page. Your terminology is wrong, you cite a "Godemont" without reference, and the basic assertion is so far from true that it's silly.

If you were trying to say something sensible here, please rewrite it. 69.107.70.159 15:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to this page that you created I was wondering if you could help me with an interesting question I thought of. If the millisecond pulsar is rotating at that speed and is 4-5 earth radii the outside edge is rotating at way over the speed of light, 383.035581 to 478.794476 times the speed of light to be exact! I know this cannot be though. How I came up with that number was using google caclulator using this equation. So I was wondering if you knew what part of the pulsar is rotating at that speed.

Did I read this wrong? What am I missing? ---CH 21:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'd like to continue our discussion at talk:mathematical coincidence. I still don't feel that approximations, like pi ~= 22/7, deserve the name of "coincidence". Hope to hear from you! MrHumperdink 02:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: Thanks for reviewing the article on self-efficacy. This is a bit picky, but I noticed that you changed however to whether or not in the phrase self-efficacy is the belief (however accurate) that one has the power.... One dictionary definition of however is "to whatever degree or extent." This meaning is consistent with its usage in the article. More to the point, "however" implies correctly that accuracy may vary on a continuous scale, but "whether or not" makes it a dichotomy. If no objections, I'll revert. Nesbit 14:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nesbitt. No worries. To me, "self-efficacy is the belief (however accurate) that one has the power..." implies that the statement is true, even as the accuracy approaches perfection. This is the way that such sentences are understood in my field of mathematics. I wanted the emphasis to be on the fact that the accuracy is immaterial. You are right about the the dichotomy, though. How about "...the belief (irrespective of its accuracy) ..."? Robinh 14:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. Your suggested fix sounds fine. Nesbit 22:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! From where to find model articles of Wikipedia? I am used to scientifical langiuage but my emphasis has typically been in understandability rather than in fine looks. Which sentences you find confused and in which ways? What about if the source is my own thought but which should be easy enough for others to follow just like that? Should I first get them published in some scientifical journal? But that is difficult for a vague subject like Gaia which Wikipedia though includes. I would just like to benefit those interested in the subject. Htervola 10:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your partial restoration to the gravitational tug article. Giving such a precise value for delta-v is meaningless here: changing delta v of 0.0019 m/s is the same as 0.002 or 0.005 in this context. What matters is the order-of-magnitude of the delta. The gravitational tug is not relevant in asteroid kinematics. This is a matter of terminolgy: the gravitational tug is used to deflect asteroids. Asteroid kinematics is the motion of asteroids on their own (e.g. 1999 KW4). Michaelbusch 22:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Answered on my own talk page - Don't hesitate if you find I should do more of that type of pictures for other articles Thanks --Xedi 19:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done the same for ln, uploading in a few seconds. --Xedi 20:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see Natural Logarithm (move it to complex logarithm if you find it better) --Xedi 20:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done the same for exponential, see exponential function --Xedi 21:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I want to add some material to Wikipedia on the subject of continued fractions, particularly the applications of continued fractions in complex analysis. I noticed that you made many of the contributions to generalized continued fractions, and that's why I'm writing to you.

I've already received some friendly advice not to modify the definition appearing at the article about continued fractions. So if I'm going to put a hook into existing articles at all I need to work from the "generalized" case. The problem is that all partial denominators are currently defined to be positive integers.

There are scads of examples from analysis where the partial denominators are complex variables, and I'd like the definition in the "generalized" article to be sufficiently general to allow for these.

Do you care if I change the generalized continued fraction article all around? DavidCBryant 01:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, RobinH!

I've added one new article, here, that illustrates how complex numbers can enter into meaningful continued fraction expressions. It's not quite done yet, and I'm still aiming to append a proof (in a separate article). Anyway, if you get a chance to look at it, feedback is always welcome. Thanks! DavidCBryant 12:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, RobinH! I'm back!!

I've added some new content to the generalized continued fraction article. Please take a look and tell me what you think when you have the time. Merry Christmas! DavidCBryant 00:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robin! Some months back, I registered with Wikipedia with the intent of writing an article about QT3. Unfortunately, after I had perused some of the policies, guidelines, suggestions, opinions, et cetera ... I was forced to conclude that I could not do so. I am therefore delighted to find that you have created an article referring to the game.

I am yet a WikiNewbie (if I may coin such a word, unless someone else has already done so), and have many questions about the proprieties of this place. I am therefore writing to ask you for help (or at least, pointers to the necessary (more!) reading) so I can figure out whether it is proper for me to add anything to your article. I have an interest, and a possible conflict of interest, in that I am a friend of the inventor of Quantum Tic Tac Toe, and am the author of a version of the game for the Palm PDA.

If you would be so kind as to reply to my (as yet non-existent) talk page, it would be greatly appreciated. And if this is not the appropriate venue for having contacted you, please also let me know that. As I said, I am as yet a stranger here.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Swwright 04:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Robin!

Been working on a draft in my user area, but it's not yet ready for publication. You can probably find it, if you wish to take a look, user pages are not really private in any sense. Good grief, has it been nearly a year?? — SWWright^Talk 14:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... I should note that my article-in-preparation on QT3 is just that: an introduction. You probably have as much information about the game from the AJP article, as you will get from me. Are you interested in it as a game (i.e., tactics and strategy?) or as a pedagogical tool (i.e. teaching quantum mechanics)? — SWWright^Talk 15:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing (yet another) way to answer my question! I have asked the same question in a number of different forums, and have yet to get the same answer twice, yet have gotten three very distinct and very believable anwers (and a host of not so believeable answers). I had no idea there would be such diversity for what I thought was a fairly simple probability question. Now I just have to assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of the three (Bayes, Wilson's interval and the new one you supplied). Do you know if there is a good article or textbook chapter that discusses the various approaches? Thanks again for your excellent answer. dryguy 20:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robinh, I'm rather hoping that Genick doesn't make an uninteligable mess of the page like he has oblique shock and moving shock. It would be nice if you could help to correct errors without destroying the article. AKAF 17:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robinh, I would certainly support a merge. If you look at the edit history you'll see that I originally merged oblique shock and shock wave and left a redirect at oblique shock. Actually the stuff at "types of shock wave" is a bit of an embarrasment, but I was having a bit of a low creativity day. The hope was that there would be enough examples of shock waves there that people would get a good ides just from the examples. Perhaps changing the section name to "Examples of shock waves" would be a good start? AKAF 09:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 February 2007, you undid an edit by 220.227.202.209 (talk · contribs). However, that edit was his own reversion of his own error. So you re-introduced his error. Please be more careful in the future to revert only to clean versions. By the way, "undo" only undoes the last change in the difference, even if you push the button while looking at a difference covering more than one change. JRSpriggs 09:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Vandalism Studies (Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies) just finished its first study and I was hoping that you being a statistician could help us formalize our findings. You can find our draft conclusions here [6]. Here's an excerpt of what we found so far:

The current study analyzed a sample pool of 100 random articles. Within these 100 articles there were a total of 668 edits during the months of November 2004, 2005, and 2006. Of those 668 edits, 31 (or 4.64%) were a vandalism of some type. The study's salient findings suggest that in a given month approximately 5% of edits are vandalism and 97% of that vandalism is done by anonymous editors. Obvious vandalism is the vast majority of vandalism used. From the data gathered within this study it is also found that roughly 25% of vandalism reverting is done by anonymous editors and roughly 75% is done by wikipedians with user accounts. The mean average time vandalism reverting is 758.35 minutes (12.63 hours), a figure that may be skewed by outliers. The median time vandalism reverting is 14 minutes.

Thanks. Remember 02:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think you edited Go (Board game) to introduce the number of moves computer programs considered compared with chess. Unfortunately you provided no source for this claim, could you do so?--ZincBelief 15:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for adding this article and for expressing interest in expanding Wikipedia's coverage of molluscs. Would you consider adding more to this page? « D. Trebbien (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trebbian. Thanks for your feedback. I'm no great malacologist. In fact I'm not a biologist at all (except for the mathematics of biodiversity). I just love the little lemon-shaped shells that Trivia has. One day I will add a photo. Best wishes, Robinh 13:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robinh, I've nominated this category for deletion as virtually every animal is cryptic in some way or other. Perhaps something like Category:Crypsis would be better, if we can gather together enough articles to populate it. Our material on the subject is so scarce at the moment though; I doubt it could gather many entries. Richard001 11:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Hodgson's paradox, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}.

Would you have any references to this article which you have started, esp. where is the name from, maybe the original paper, please. Or at least where you got it from. Thanks! Jmath666 07:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed you were the editor who originally provided the description currently being used at crypsis ([7]). Do you have any sources for this, or is it just based on your interpretation of the concept? The two main issues are (1) Is avoiding observation supposed to be visual only? and (2) Is crypsis as broad as this? For example is mimicry a form of crypsis, or is crypsis a different concept? I haven't researched this much myself, but it seems hard to pin down a coherent definition of these things. Richard001 01:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found biological dictionaries tend to refer to it as visual only too, and they tend to use the terms 'crypsis' and 'camouflage' interchangably. I guess we'll have to change the definition of crypsis given then, though it seems there would then be no equivalent term for the broader meaning. I find dictionaries as a whole are usually inadequate at providing reliable definitions, especially for subjects that are difficult to define without lengthy explanations. I'd really like to get the pages crypsis, camouflage and the annoying cryptic coloration (which will have to be merged into one or the other) sorted out, so that's why I brought it up. Richard001 22:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robinh. EMBaero is having a go at cleaning up some pages in the aerodynamics sections, so not would probably be a good time to lob in, if you're so inclined. Amongst other affected: Oblique shock, Moving shock, Shock wave, Shock dynamics, Rayleigh_flow, Fanno flow and Prandtl-Meyer_expansion_fan. Regards AKAF 15:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Robinh, are you the same RobinH on Wikibooks? If so, someone needs to look into a serious COI issue, here. Astonishing that self-promotional work is a featured book!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robinh. I proposed to merge Your article Vandemonde's formula with Vandermonde's identity. The discussion is at Talk:Vandermonde's identity#Merge from Vandemonde's formula. —Leo Laursen ( T ¦ C ) 17:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-vandalism Barnstar
		For reverting so many unhelpful edits and vandalism on Wikipedia, I User Swirlex award you this Barnstar.

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Colin Roberts, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Colin Roberts. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey--I'm removing your recent edit to Minimax, because it's more confusing than helpful in the current state. I'm not sure the best way to deal with it. Possibly get more specific in the assumptions for the theorem? Cretog8 (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the condition to the theorem that it's for games with finite strategies. How does that work for you? Cretog8 (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robinh. You're going beyond what I know, so I can't answer at all quickly. Maybe after I study a bit. If you're interested in games on the unit square, and there's a literature on that (so it's not original research, which it looks like it isn't), then it seems like a reasonable article to create. In terms of games with no value, the reason (for instance) Silverman's game has no value (I'm taking that at face value, haven't proven it to myself yet) is that payoffs are defined on open sets and are discontinuous. It's getting into different territory than Minimax and Nash equilibrium which were primarily addressed to finite strategy games. Um, so I'm not sure where I'm going with all this. It's possible that someone at the game theory project would have some input. I'll be happy to look at any new article you create. I might be a good semi-ignorant test audience. Cretog8 (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robinh (just Robin?). I think I was getting various ideas crossed in my head; Silverman's game does not imply it has no value. The stub there definitely wants some work, though. It doesn't describe any solutions to the game. Also, it might be that it's possible to model it as being on the unit square, but it looks like the current definition is on . Cretog8 (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey--Minimax as it stands right now is kinda a mess, a disorganized jumble of different applications of the notion of minimax. It probably wants a major re-write. Thinking about how to do that makes my head hurt. I'm new enough to wiki-ness that I'm not sure if a separate article on the minimax theorem would be appropriate. Maybe some advice at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Game_theory]? Cretog8 (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel like it's particularly important to provide counterexamples to the minimax theorem. That's mostly because I think the theorem is pretty clear about its limitations. Not sure... Possibly in a nontechnical part there could be counter-examples for those who want to get the gist of the theorem but don't want to think math. Cretog8 (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robin. How goes it in Cambridge's ivory towers? Has your turn to The Dark Side paid off yet? I hope so. Have they granted you any special powers yet? Sith statistics perhaps? Anyway, I just spotted that you've been editing demerara - any chance of getting hold of your recipe for tablet?  ;-) Best regards, --PLUMBAGO 13:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello mate. Well things are settling down here . . . although I would characterize economics as the Dismal Science, certainly in the field of climate mitigation. As for special powers, I am hoping to procure a working computer before my contract expires. Heh. My main problem is selling my house in Romsey. Wanna buy it? On another matter, are you going to the Tyndall Assembly tomorrow? Robinh (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly not. I'm stuck here for the time being. My contract's up in a few weeks time, so I'm scrambling around trying to finish bits and bobs of work off. I'm hopefully going to be interviewed for a position here before the end, but we'll see. Failing that, Bob seems to be in the business of conjuring up money. And failing that, there's always Sainsburys! The Christmas rush is doubtless coming up, so they'll need extra staff.  ;-) Anyway, as the foregoing implies, I'm afraid property ownership is not something I'm considering in the immediate future. Good luck selling your place off. Do your Dark Side colleagues have any pertinent advice on that front? One would presume that it's their bread and butter. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 13:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recreated at User:Robinh/sandbox. Let me know if you have any questions/comments or need help. seicer | talk | contribs 04:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect: k-1

Better but still incorrect: k-1

Better still but not yet correct: k - 1

Correct: k − 1

All four next to each other:

k-1

k-1

k - 1

k − 1

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics). Michael Hardy (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robin

Thanks about your comments concerning the generalization to the Lambert W function. Will do. I am new to this kind of forum and I could use a few pointers w.r.t. adding and editing articles and/or discussion threads. When it came to pointing out that an article was incomplete, I was following the guidelines and posted a comment on the discussion forum.

best wishes

Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.16.147 (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I first thought I should change the first necklace appearance to Necklace (combinatorics), but then decided that the math context is really different, so "see also" section was a compromize... Mhym (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I intend turning Consensus division into a disambiguaion page for the reasons in Talk:Consensus division. Dmcq (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know you were going to create that article, or I would not have reverted the edit. Sorry! Next time, put that you're going to create the article in the edit summary please.

Thanks and sorry,

-Axmann8 (Talk) 10:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that it's been over a year since you made this edit, but what is your basis for calling Type III SS "a discredited technique formerly used in statistics?" Admittedly, I'm only a first year Masters student, but nothing that I've seen thus far supports that claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjh57 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you were around at the beginning (originated) article, are still here, and communicated intensively with the contributor of my pet coincidence (from among those on the page at present). I thought I would tell you about the current threat and ask if MrHumperdink provided the sourcing of pi^4+pi^5~=e^6 that appeared in the article ("personal communication by...") temporarily. Some think that attribution of a print source is a requirement, but I think the standard should be that it's only a preference. In any case, personal communications are a form of attribution at least, though not of notability necessarily.Julzes (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know: WP:OR's exception on routine calculations refers to the sources of the numbers used in calculations, and I am reasoning that the sources, as far as that goes, are the numbers themselves, as opposed to cases where a number has some other meaning as a datum (birthday, weight of something, etc.).Julzes (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found net reference (Ph.D. from CalTech :) ). zhurnaly.com/cgi-bin/wiki/CoincidentalTaxonomy.Julzes (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. How go things over in the city of dreaming spires and ivory towers? Hopefully all well. Things here pass more or less as usual. Sooner or later someone will find out that I'm a charlatan!  ;-) Anyway, I came across this and thought that you'd appreciate it. Actually, I imagine that many in the community might find it both amusing and rather apposite. Best regards, --PLUMBAGO 08:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! great to hear from you, and I enjoyed the link very much; a peculiar conjugation of Godwin's law! I don't know about dreaming spires or ivory towers...more like dozy roofs and dreary garretts! Could we talk by email? google me by name and "Cambridge". Best wishes, Robinh (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robinh, how are you? I had some new ideas about most-perfect magic squares and generated some at fr:talk:Carré magique plus que parfait. I beleive that the number of squares of order n is

when

, < for i < j

as mentioned at de:talk:Vollkommen perfektes magisches Quadrat. For n = 36 = 2^2 * 3^2 this is 1.01406E+44 and not 2.7E+44 essentially different as mentioned in the article.

Do you have some possibilities to verify the figures?

Do you have the book written by Kathleen Ollerenshaw and David Bree?

Do you know the book of T.V.Padmakumar, Number Theory and Magic Squares, Sura books, ISBN 9788184493214 ?

‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 16:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on the formula. The amount of squares is

where and . Best regards

‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 14:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also wikiversity:portal talk:Mathematics#Most-perfect magic square. Regards
‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 01:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Douglas Warrick, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Warrick. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Abductive (reasoning) 02:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robinh; please take a look at project talk:WikiProject Spam#ein Schildbürgerstreich. I am travelling and can neither be online nor on IRC. Thanks for your help in advance!

Dear Robinh;

I kindly invite you to participate at the development of a new game at commons:category:Collaborative work. Please take a look at the related talk page. You might be interested on some card tricks. Just look at Medias (examples). Best regards Gangleri
‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 10:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robinh! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 5 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Walter DeNino - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Jearl Walker - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Game of Mr Paint and Mrs Correct has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:N. This 2009 invention has not been commented on or used in independent reliable sources.

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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) 18:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you made the change in the covariance article regarding Complex Random Vectors. You stated that "The matrix so obtained will be Hermitian positive definite." Do you have any prove that the matrix in fact will be positive definite? Do you know any books or other references for this? I've been cracking my head to think if it's actually positive definite or just positive semidefinite, like any other covariance matrix from real valued vectors. Felipe (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the messages, but I just can't see the trivial prove to the statement. I've been trying a lot of things and can't seem to figure it out. If you could really help me I would gladly appreciate it. Also, would it apply to cross-covariance matrices (between two different complex random vectors)? Or it's positive definitive only for the case of the a vector with itself? Felipe (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm looking for a citation for a change you added a very long time ago... in 2004. It was on changes in brightness to the North star (Polaris) and you said it was from Science, but I tried searching in the Science archives and I didn't find anything. You wouldn't happen to remember any information that would help me track it down? Thanks, Lepidoptera (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I just noticed your post recently on the Computing RefDesk. It says you have Leopard running on a PowerPC. I was unaware that was even possible - I thought Leopard was for Intel-only machines. Can you confirm this? Also, is there anything extra-special that needs to be done to get this to work? I have Tiger on my G3 PPC iBook, but wouldn't mind trying Leopard (I really doubt it would work, though). Cheers. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 14:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hugh Howitt 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Howitt 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 good 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. —S Marshall T/C 21:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robinh. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing.
Message added 12:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rcsprinter (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

the articles Bochner's theorem and positive-definite function contain an (almost identical) paragraph about statistical applications, which I think you wrote. Could you please provide a reference?

Thank you very much, Sasha (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Robinh (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

210.55.215.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Momoxia". The reason given for Momoxia's block is: "Creating attack, nonsense or other inappropriate pages".

• Blocking administrator: C.Fred (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: Should be cleared now. Kuru (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Buckle bunny has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Dicdef, only one source.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Buckle bunny 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buckle bunny (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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Journal of Mundane Behavior has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Journal that existed only briefly without leaving much of a trace.

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Journal of Mundane Behavior 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Mundane Behavior 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 notice from the top of the article. Randykitty (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Generalized Dirichlet distribution may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• where <math>p_1+p_2+p_3<1</math> and <math>p_4=1-p_1-p_2-p_3</math>.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diameter of a group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Finite. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 19 July 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) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robinh. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robinh. 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]

Hello, Robinh. 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]

Hello! I hope you are well. I need your help. I face a peculiar problem which forces me to contact you rather anonymously rather than the wiki userid I have been using for years (I'll explain). If you recall, I had contacted you w.r.t. a generalization of the Lambert W function and you recommended that I be bold. I showed you the papers and made the changes to the site according to your suggestions/directives. Since then, a lot of good work has been done w.r.t. that generalization with positive updates. It has been cited and used in fundamental Physics. It has even been cited by the very so-called "owners" of that function e.g. Rob Corless and D. Jeffries for the better. This is all well and good and positive and I thank you. However, I now face a peculiar problem namely a self-appointed vigilante who calls himself "HelpUsStopSpam", a fanatic with an issue concerning ResearchGate but whose major contributions consist in tearing down wikipedia contribution to shreds because he views anything he does not like as "spam". He often quotes Wikipedia's policy of self-citation and he removes without proof that the wiki userid is indeed making a self-citation to remove said citation and contribution. The Conflict of interest policy (COI) in wikipedia clearly states: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion." However, he ignores agreements made with other editors, like the one we had, and just cuts away. This is why I am contacting you, this self-appointed vigilante looks at my list of contributions and applies his own criteria as a means of cutting away the contributions, I and others, have built over the years! This is why I am contacting you anonymously. His talk-page is filled of complaints from others in this regard but he just ignores them. I have myself bogged down in some kind of editor warfare. In my defense, he is the aggressor and I (and others) am the defender. He uses his own criteria way above and beyond Wikipedia's expressed policies like citations without understanding that e.g. impact factors change from IT to Science to Mathematics. The trouble is I don't want to break e.g. the 3-revert rule, etc... A part of me wants to lodge a complaint with the Wikipedia administrators but I fear this could backfire. I do not want to appear as the aggressor. A few questions, if I may? Part of the problem is that agreements on talk page can be erased over time. Ours is still there for the W function but some editing over the years has been applied to other sites (this vigilante started in early 2016). Is there something like a statute of limitations w.r.t. Wikipedia entries? I.e. you should not be allowed to veto or cut or remove changes done in previous years because policies change over time? What are my options?

I also think this "HelpUsStopSpam" is a bit dangerous for Wikipedia. E.g. He has this openly professed "jihad" against ResearchGate, he has added fuel to the fire on the Wiki site for ResearchGate just recently. ResearchGate faces criticisms but Wikipedia is not one of the players against ResearchGate in current and past lawsuits but "HelpUsStopSpam" insists on forcing his own point of view here (and on all of Wikipedia). I submit Wikipedia has to remain objective and remain outside of such disputes. I know this sounds subjective but in a way he reminds me of Harry Potter's evil Dolores Umbridge except that Dolores was empowered to do as she did. I cannot see how "HelpUsStopSpam" is empowered apart from being just another wiki editor - sorry to say. He is not an administrator but he acts as if he was. He seems to act as if he was the grim reaper.

Thanks for asking your RD/MA question. It's been a couple of decades since the modicum of algebra I studied, so I enjoy pondering those questions which show up on the ref desk and appear to be within the scope of my limited subject knowledge. After pondering on your question for a while I was just about to give up and ask you what the explicit isomorphism was when the very simple and obvious answer struck me. I then wondered if you made the connection to Parity bit. Cheers! -- ToE 01:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Akivis algebra.

A New Page Patroller Boleyn just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you:

This has been tagged for 4 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and ping me. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robinh. 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]

An article you recently created, Wasysym, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more 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 "Draft:" 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. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Wasysym, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 16 November 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) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Back in '04 you contributed this formula. Do you know where it came from? Dicklyon (talk) 01:54, 15 August 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) 01:15, 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) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the parallelepiped page, I renamed lexicography to etymology and rearranged things with the aim to make it more readable. Feel free to take a look and adjust. 'wɪnd (talk) 11:00, 19 May 2022 (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) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robin. In case you'd not come across it before, I thought I'd message to ask whether there are any wikipedia articles that you'd be interested in creating/updating/overhauling and submitting for external, academic peer review.

The WikiJournal of Science (www.wikijsci.org) couples the rigour of academic peer review with the extreme reach of the encyclopedia. For existing Wikipedia articles, it's a great way to get additional feedback from external experts. Peer-reviewed articles are dual-published both as standard academic PDFs, as well as having changes integrated back into Wikipedia. This improves the scientific accuracy of the encyclopedia, and rewards authors with citable, indexed publications. It also provides much greater reach than is normally achieved through traditional scholarly publishing.

Anyway, let me know whether you'd be interested in putting an article through academic peer review (either solo, or with a team of coauthors).

All the best, Thomas T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 05:30, 2 February 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) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ensemble (fluid mechanics) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Do we need this article tagged uncited for 15 years when we already have Ensemble (mathematical physics) which is cited?

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2024 (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) 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]