Welcome edit
|
Venn Diagrams edit
Welcome (back) to Wikipedia. I had to move your thoughts on the Venn diagram article to its talk page, where I've responded. I agree that the article could use a little work - especially on the application to logic - but I don't think it is confusing Venn diagrams with Edward diagrams. Would you be able to add a bit about logic to it? Many thanks for working to improve the article. RupertMillard (Talk) 00:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh - here is a link to the section of the talk page: Talk:Venn diagram#Suggestions for improvement from User talk:Dagme RupertMillard (Talk) 01:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've replied on the thread above. In future, please try not to delete other users' comments from talk pages. Many thanks. RupertMillard (Talk) 09:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Editing the first section edit
You asked about how to edit the first section of a page. There are two ways:
- Use the "edit" link at the top of the web page to edit the entire page, and then just edit the first section.
- Go to "My preferences" then "Gadgets", and enable "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page". Then you will have the section-specific edit link you are looking for.
By the way, if you don't know about the mathematics wikiproject, you may find some interesting resources and editors there. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you run into any other problems.
About the set theory page, please don't take the discussion there personally in any way. I don't mean to come across as overly brusque, I just have my own opinion to present. It's always good to have a larger collection of knowledgeable editors in the discussion, because it helps the article represent a broader range of views. The goal is always to find some compromise wording that everyone can accept. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Euler diagram article edit
To Bill Bailey (the following was posted in error on Carl August's Talk Page and later put on Bill's page and this page):
You wrote to me (Dagme):
"Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you run into any other problems."
Is this what you had in mind? I don't see any instructions on how to send messages.
I saw your new historical section on the Euler Diagram page. I am looking into Euler and Venn Diagrams with a view to suggesting revisions again.
I think a good first step would be to revise the pages separately with references to each other. At a certain point, contributors can decide whether the pages should be merged.
Here is an article which may be of interest to you:
http://www.maa.org/editorial/euler/How%20Euler%20Did%20It%2003%20Venn%20Diagrams.pdf
I prefer to correspond by email, so let me know if you are interested in an email correspondence.
Dagme (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Dagme it's me Bill who is trying to write a history section for the page, not Carl. (I monitor his talk page to keep an eye on what's going on in his wikiworld, and I saw your post there). Let me finish the history to the best of my ability and then go at it. Or, if you have suggestions, go ahead and let me know what they are, either at the talk page, or whatever... I will look at the article you've linked at Carl's page -- more tertiary sources are definitely in order.
I agree with your idea that you posted on CBM's page -- cross reference the articles, then see if maybe they could be blended into one. OR: write a common history section that treats the whole sequence Euler, Venn, Post, Veitch, Karnaugh, and then link all the articles to this common history. Also, the Karnaugh map page needs a history section, and it doesn't discuss the Veitch diagram at all. Also, I haven't looked at Hypercube for a long time, especially w.r.t. Karnaugh maps and a history. We also need to wrap in Post's 1921 (his Truth Table method), and there's this intriguing reference that appears in both Veitch and Karnaugh: "SYNTHESIS OF ELECTRONIC COMPUTING AND CONTROL CIRCUITS (book), Staff of the Harvard Computation Laboratory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1951 chap. 5. And all the references in Shannon's 1938. (I had to pay $12 to get Veitch's 1952, but I do have it in pdf. It is not a very good paper -- his method is flawed -- whereas Karnaugh's work is as we know it today virtually without modification: thorough, precise and brilliant in its reach).
The history section on the Venn diagram page is actually very good. I haven't had time to study its references. If we were to "wrap together" all the history into a common article this would have to be incorporated; it reaches back even farther in time.
RE the Euler history: I am close to being "done" as in ready to remove my little "work-in-progress" signs. But I'm wrestling with the example that I derived from Hamilton. Why this is the case is actually pretty interesting: It has to do with the imprecision of the goofy syllogism-language -- very imprecise and sloppy. More work is definitely needed and I am fiddling around with the drawings, I will probably add one more. Venn's example -- the circle x inside y (All X are Y) really should be "IF an X then a Y" (i.e. logical implication) and the little circle z off to the side of circle y-containing-x should be "It is NOT the case that: 'Z is identical to Y' ". Given this more precise langue, then the truth table (almost) yields the Venn diagram and Karnaugh map (I think, I need to double-check; the x'y'z' square (universe of discourse) is what is missing. This is my next step.)
Anyway these are my thoughts at this time. You can correspond with me at User talk:wvbailey or at the Talk:Euler diagram page. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Mathematical symbols and formulas edit
Unfortunately you asked the wrong person. This is one of those things I haven't figured out in the 3-4 years I've been editing. Carl User talk:CBM or maybe User talk:Trovatore would probably know, or be able to direct you. When you find out, let me know. The only way I know, and the way I actually prefer as long as it looks okay, is to get the symbols from Microsoft word e.g. Arial Unicode MS or Arial: ∀ ∈ ⊃ ∃ ℵ Ø → ∞ ∫ etc.
Another thing I haven't done recently, but was able to do a few years ago quite well, is to upload a table. This involves the downloading of a macro that you run in Excel (at least it used to -- it was called "Prettytable" back a few years ago.) I.e. you create your table in Excel and then apply the macro to it. I will look into this.
I have been doing my drawings in Autodesk Sketchbook Pro 2010 R1. (This costs $100 or so). It has been very nice because the drawings are easy to import and export to other applications; I used to use Autosketch but the program has risen in price to about $250). But this is pixel-based as opposed to vector-based and the compression produces artifacts. And I haven't found a good vector-based drawing program for a reasonable price (I think there's a freeware version but I haven't wanted to mess with it).
The other thing I discovered yesterday was how to use the "camera" in Adobe Acrobat to capture an image off a page; then I can paste this into my Sketchbook Pro drawing, and work on it there.
My only way of learning wikipedia-speak has been to look at a page in this raw edit-mode such as I'm using now and see how others have been successful in accomplishing something, then imitate it.
P.S. I found the article that you provided the link for above to be useful and have quoted it; just haven't added the reference to the list yet.
Hope this helps, Bill Wvbailey (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_use_tables
Here's an example of what the Excel macro spits out. But something has happened to the cell borders! Wvbailey (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
| minterm | row # | x | y | z | ( ~ | ( y | & | z ) | & | ( x | --> | y ) ) | --> | ( ~ | (x | & | z ) ) | ||
| x'y'z' | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| x'y'z | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||
| x'yz' | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| x'yz | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||
| xy'z' | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||
| xy'z | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| xyz' | 6 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||
| xyz | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Uploading pdf images edit
Let's see if this works:
Yikes! it did work! Never done this before. Here's what I did.
I. Create new pdf document: I found page 74 in my cc of Couturat (in pdf that I got from downloading it at googlebooks). Then I created a new pdf page using my Adobe Acrobat: Tools --> Select and Zoom --> Snapshot tool. Use the Snapshot tool + to click-drag/select the image. It put it directly on the clipboard. Then in the toolbar beneath the upper toolbar find: Create pdf --> From Snapshot Image. This just automatically created the cropped page.
II. Save the new pdf in your computer in a place where you can readily find it -- the desktop works best for me: I then saved this new one-page pdf to my desktop as " Couturat 1914 p 74 example Venn minterms.pdf ".
III. Upload the page to wikipedia: At the left of the screen find the Toolbox --> upload file. Follow the instructions: --> find the file on your desktop and open it --> fill in the blanks on the form --> be sure to select the type of copyright (in this case -- none in the US, published before 1924) --> etc.
I hope this works for you. If not, lemme know and we can go from there. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This didn't take very long to upload. I don't think the image quality is quite as good as the jpg version of it that I made. But there you have it.
Yes, thanks for your comments. I will try to improve this article soon. And yes I have often wondered about the excellent questions you raise, and I continue to try to think about them. My guess about politics in America is here in a knol but I am still continuing to learn. When you learn new stuff too, I'm interested.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC edit
Because of your previous participation at Monty Hall problem, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:
Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?
May 2014 edit
When you add or change contents in articles, as you did to Windows Media Player, please cite a reliable source. Contents without source may be deleted peremptorily. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Thank you. Codename Lisa (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Windows Media Player. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Codename Lisa (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 7 edit
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ramesh Ponnuru, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American. 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) 08:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
February 2015 edit
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Byron White, you may be blocked from editing. Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
"Disruptive" and "inappropriate" are in the eye of the beholder. I don't understand how these communications work or how Wikipedia works. In particular, I would be interested to learn of any special standing that "Bbb23" has to make threats of this kind. These are TALK pages, not actual articles. My sense is that "Bbb23" is simply a bully, using Wikipedia as an outlet for aggression ---Dagme (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- There was a link to WP:TALK above. If you want to know how these communications or how Wikipedia works, you can find the information there. The concern is that you're using the talk pages as "chat pages". They're meant to be used for discussing the Wikipedia articles. So, you're not using them in the way the community expects. Willondon (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Misuse of talk page(s) edit
Your edit was reverted as a violation of WP:TALK. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- This comment was also reverted. Please don't ask such dumb and politically-loaded questions that are easily answered by reading the article and its references. There is no longer any doubt about "who" did it and "why" it happened. If you are in doubt, then you haven't been reading RS, and that brings your competency as an editor into question. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
What gives...? edit
I had the impression that you wanted to contribute to this project. But now you're just disrupting and vandalizing? I understand you're upset about being reverted, but don't resort to this kind of nonsense, you'll just end up getting blocked. Step back, take a break, and when and if you feel you want to contribute constructively, then come back. Familiarize yourself with the policies & guidelines here, don't be afraid to ask for help and be open to helpful criticism (which includes reverts of your edits) when it comes along. You'll find people are helpful if you just ask. Cheers - theWOLFchild 18:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
FYI edit
- I replied to your comment on Talk:List of United States military bases, but forgot to ping you (now you know).
- I fixed the heading you posted on Talk:The Washington Times (from
..."conservative" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ???????
to ""conservative" !?")... well, just because.
- "well, just because" --- Great reason! ---Dagme (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- Well, actually it was because all those extra and needless exclamation & question marks look ridiculous, but I thought I thought that would've been obvious. Guess I thought wrong. - theWOLFchild 05:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
3.And lastly, I thought you might find this link useful. Have a nice day - theWOLFchild 11:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions notice edit
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 15:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
February 2020 - continued misuse of talk pages edit
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Jordan Peterson. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- It's not as though you haven't been told before (by 3 editors) not to do this. Doug Weller talk 13:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
More talk page concerns edit
Dagme, it looks like you have received multiple warnings about inappropriate usage of article talk pages. Your recent contributions show that you have not heeded those warnings. Do you want any help in understanding what's wrong with your current style? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia edit
Hi Dagme! Thank you for your edits to Phil DiStefano. It looks like you've copied or moved text from Ward Churchill into that page, and while you are welcome to re-use the content, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message edit
 | 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 |
Talk page use edit
You've been warned for inappropriate use of talk pages since 2015 by multiple editors, including administrators Bbb23 and Doug Weller. Insulting the people and products that are subjects of articles is not appropriate in the slightest. Please re-evaluate your approach to using talk pages – they are to be used to discuss changes to the article. I also notice that 79% of your edits ever have been to talk pages. While discussion is a good thing, working on articles is even better: that is what being here to build an encyclopaedia is all about, which is the core of our mission. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
January 2022 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages (including user talk pages) such as Talk:Joe Manchin are for discussion related to improving (a) an encyclopedia article in specific ways based on reliable sources or (b) project policies and guidelines. They are not for general discussion about the article topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers 15:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)