User talk:Oli Filth/Archive 7

CSE HTML Validator

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from CSE HTML Validator, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

I believe CSE HTML Validator is notable because it is highly ranked on google when searching for "HTML Validator", has been around since 1997, and has been integrated with many popular software programs like HomeSite, TopStyle, and UltraEdit. Hope you agree.

DCT

Hi Oli, I posted that link to my write-up of using the DCT in FFTW to do derivative calculations. I think it is a unique bit of info that is not included in the DCT page, and would be of interest to people who are reading the DCT article (or probably the spectral methods article too). I understand that 'no blogs' is so people don't spam wikipediea, but read the article I linked to! It is a how-to of using FFTW to apply the DCT to a useful mathematical operation. How is that spam? If I had put the same article on a Google Knol page, would you have deleted the link?

Grammar

Please learn the rules of Grammar before critisising others. 86.145.21.227 (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to cite a reference for that rule? Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

My English teacher taught it to me and it is in the style guide of every technical manual type that I hav had to write.

A google on 'an versus a' turns up no shortage of references. The most comprehensive discussion is blocked by Wikipedia for some reason. Just to add confusion to the problem, there appear to be a number of apparently authoritative sites that are clearly not run by any recogniseable authority - mostly American judging by the examples. (Bit like Battery University which looks like an authoritative site but is run by a private individual). 86.145.21.227 (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that you were specifically taught that "a" precedes "H" (or "F", "L", "M", "N", "S" or "X") in the context of an initialism? I can't find anything on the web that would agree with that, even if I search for "an versus a", and the first paragraph of A and an disagrees. On that Google search, I've found at least two that explicitly disagree: [1] and [2].

If you do find anything that supports this notion then please post it here, but if so this would probably then need to go to a wider audience as it would affect countless Wikipedia articles (e.g. HVAC, HDMI, HSBC, H-bridge, XML, MRI, FFT, MP). Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I just changed the Cascaded integrator-comb filter page from "an" to "a" a minute ago, just to have you change it back a few minutes later. I think it is funny and cool that someone changed it so quickly. This is my first experience in editing wikipedia pages, and I am far from a grammar expert. At first I could not think of a reason someone would use "an" in that context. I don't know how much you actually know about the whole signal processing world, I am just learning about it myself, but everyone pronounces the acronym, FIR, like "fur". So when I read it, it seamed completely incorrect. I see the reasoning behind the change now, but do you know what the actual rule is? I presume that if I have a conversation with someone, and I choose to pronounce it "fur", I would use "a", but I could see that in writing you would want to use "an", although I personally disagree with it. Nathan (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I check my watchlist every hour or so while I'm at work, I guess it was just coincidental timing!

As for pronunciation, I generally hear it at work pronounced as separate letters ("F I R"). I would be tempted to stick with that for now, unless there's some compelling evidence that "fur" is dominant in the field... Regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting some hindu crap

Its good that you deleted that carp calling the Holy Kaaba a hindu temple.

--ChJameel (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 11:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What i was refering to is given below

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kaaba&curid=21496109&diff=292936403&oldid=292846894

--ChJameel (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting some hindu crap <--- LMAO!--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Maximum length sequence‎‎ article

Hi. Can you please explain what you meant when you reverted my edit to the Maximum length sequence‎‎ article? If I remember correctly, the spectrum of a MLS is that of a sampled sinc^2() function, which is far from flat. Further more, it becomes even less flat for short sequences. The current statement appears to be misleading or just incorrect. -Roger (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The DTFT (or DFT) of an MLS is flat (apart from the DC spike). You are correct that once converted back to the continuous domain, it has a non-flat spectrum, this didn't cross my mind when I read the article section. Perhaps we should clarify this distinction. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 08:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The Fourier Analysis-why the external link was put?

The Fourier Analysis The purpose of this module(http://www.nitte.ac.in/downloads/CTFS.pdf

) is to show step by step, using a very simple example(the Almost Square Wave), how the Fourier Series coefficients are determined. Only the minimum amount of the required theory is explained. So the reader, without getting lost in all the theoretical details, can develop a feel and liking for the subject.

The pre-requisite is the CONVOLUTION & LTI Systems module() which is already an external link in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashok567 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Power Management

Oli - your first revision on this made sense because i put a link to my own organisation as well as the independent energy star, but your second makes no sense because I did not add a link to my company and actually removed two other advertisements. Your revison put back the adverts and removed energy star information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_management Verismic (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake! I assumed you'd merely re-done your original edit. I've reverted my change. Regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 22:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - you will see i reverted the other article - your call if you want to revert again, just be consistent with everyone else and I'm happy :) Verismic (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

why external link is appropriate?

The Fourier Analysis The purpose of this module(http://www.nitte.ac.in/downloads/CTFS.pdf) is to show step by step, using a very simple example(the Almost Square Wave), how the Fourier Series coefficients are determined. Only the minimum amount of the required theory is explained. So the reader, without getting lost in all the theoretical details, can develop a feel and liking for the subject. also see: convolution(http://www.nitte.ac.in/downloads/Conv-LTI.pdf) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.195.230 (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Why the external link on Unit Impulse Function

Unit Impulse Function

Why this external link? (http://www.nitte.ac.in/downloads/Unit%20Impulse%20Function.pdf) The explanation of how δ(t) = ∞ at t = 0 in the definition of the Unit Impulse function is widely accepted. However, the explanation of δ(t) = ∞ does not explain why. The explanation provided in the link explains the reason how we get this δ(t) = ∞ is clear, correct and practical. It also gives insight into the meaning, definition and application of the Unit Impulse function. Ashok567 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashok567 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Why did you undo my edits?

You undid my addition of a missing alternative saying merely "External link only". What? Why? MBParker (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was completely a good faith edit. And it was very useful. Alluullauua46 (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Markcowan

Posted a reply on my talk page to your comment, please reply. Thanks. Mark Cowan (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your note. Let me know if you're ok with response. Thanks in advance Mark Cowan (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Followed your guidelines. Thank you. Mark Cowan (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wickorama

Why did you delete my Wing IDE entry on Comparison_of_integrated_development_environments ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickorama (talk • contribs) 04:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Radiant Flux

Hello Oli. You do have a point about the math I posted, but I disagree with your comment that it is "all wrong". There seems to have been a formatting issue that showed the F1 factor as being divided, rather than multiplied. However, the results are still the same.

I'm also curious how a simple math proof can be counted as original research. Looking through the Wikipedia definition of original research:

• "Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research."
  • What I posted fits this description of a synthesis of earlier publications.
• "This material is of a primary source character. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified)."
  • There is zero new research involved in the posting. The posting presents existing knowledge in a new form, which again fits the description.
• "An original idea is an idea, which one person thought up wholly or partly independently of other people. Sometimes two or more people can come up with the same idea independently."
  • I certainly did not come up with this idea, nor did I attach an unreferenced claim to the dBm page. What I did was prove someone else's claim.

I look forward to your response.

Chris uvic (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

BCTWriter

Hi Oli Filth,

You removed some material I posted as possible copyright violations. I owned all that material and did not copy from any websites but I am an tech writer for an engineering firm and used the language I would typically use in writing. I would like to get those contributions back in play. What proof do I need to offer to assure you I am the author and it is appropriate in this venue?

No complaints by the way, this is the diligence that keeps Wikipedia a terrific resource.

Thanks - BCTWriter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bctwriter (talk • contribs) 23:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This edit, for instance, was copied directly from [3]. At least parts of this edit were copied from [4], this edit was from [5], and so on. Even if you are the original author of all those articles (which seems unlikely, because they have different author names!), there is still a copyright violation unless the existing copyright holder explicitly releases the material into the public domain, or licesnses it under the GFDL. Please see the copyright FAQ for more info. Regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 10:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will edit the content. I contributed professionally to all those articles so even though the byline is not mine, the work is mine and I always retain the right to repurpose my work. I think those additions have value. Thanks for the clarification, Regards as well, BCTwriter. Bctwriter (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bctwriter (talk • contribs) 14:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, some of the material probably does have merit here, but two points:

• My guess is that it's the publishing magazine that owns the copyright on the material, and failing that, the named author.
• What is suitable for a magazine (in terms of language, tone, and structure) may not be suitable for a Wikipedia article, so certainly shouldn't just be a verbatim copy. However, you've said you'll edit the material, so this is probably irrelevant.

Regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 03:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Maximum length sequence, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. –Türî∂n 11:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I re-did the vandalism instead of reverting it! Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 13:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

ironpython ide

don't understand why python ide have not the place in the IDE article. what are your + and -( cons) reasons ?

not mature , not useable to technical ?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.142.0.11 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 8 August 2009

Please see my comments at Talk:Comparison of integrated development environments#IronPython. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 18:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't have an email address

It is not appropriate for us to continue the conversation you started without taking it to email. Since you don't have an email address, I can not do this. So, all I can do is quote Wikipedia policy: WP:TALKNO makes it clear to Never post personal details. The one personal thing I will say is that I appreciate your edits, and that you have done a lot to make sure Wikipedia articles better reflect policies like WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:CONSENSUS, etc. I don't do barnstars, but you definitely deserve one. Just to clarify (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I considered WP:TALKNO when I posted, but I concluded that it wasn't relevant, as it's still an alias (the same one), I posted no personal details (as far as WP:OUTING is concerned) nor a link to any, and on the forum I mentioned you freely admit you are the same person and have supplied plenty of links to the articles and talk pages here. (In fact, I chanced upon that discussion while doing Google searches for sources on Gothic chess.) If you are still concerned, then please ask at WP:OVERSIGHT and if they agree, the edit will be permanently removed from the database.

Either way, I hope you have taken on board what I said!

I'm not a fan of the barnstar "system" either, but I appreciate the compliment. Regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 18:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree you didn't cross the WP:TALKNO line about my personal identity. It is secret; I'm sure you know why. I have kept your WP:COI thoughts in mind and feel, for reasons I will not detail here, that I haven't crossed the line.

But I agree I did make some less-than-perfect edits. I am a human being who makes mistakes. While I was disturbed you went to the effort to research who I am, I also am flattered. I will delete what you perceive to be a personal insult from that talk page, and I will keep this Wikipedia account inactive unless the edits we had problems with before start happening again. WP:DEADHORSE and all that. Just to clarify (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for considering my concerns.

As I said above, I discovered your off-Wikipedia presence by chance, it was not a concerted effort to "research" you! However, the same is not true of your WP presence; as we are both editors heavily who've been involved in the Gothic chess saga here on WP, I've always been aware of edits you've made here. My concern had been brewing for a while, but it wasn't until now that I felt compelled to say anything. Best regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 22:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Elep2009

Hi, Why did you deleted my link? There are other links on this page similar to the one you've just deleted and you leave them. Elep2009 (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elep2009 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought these were links to a commercial product. Please re-add the links if they're relevant. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 20:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Phase Shift Keying

Hello Oli,

I would like to know why you reverted my changes on Phase-shift keying about the distinction between bits per symbol (or channel usage) and bits per second.

Regards, Guillaume Simard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.89.51 (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Firstly because "bits per access" and "channel usage" aren't particularly useful concepts. Secondly, the important thing in relation to channel capacity is the net bit rate, i.e. bit/s. So "bits per symbol" isn't relevant (however it might be if it were discussing spectral efficiency). Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not true, it doesn't make any sense to say that QPSK has 2 bits/s capacity unless you ASSUME one channel usage per second. When comparing BPSK and QPSK, for example, you need to settle for the same number of channel usage per second, or symbol rate if you prefer, thus normalizing your comparison, which is now not dependent on time or bandwidth. Any of these modulations can run way above the given rate per second given on the graph, as experience will tell. Look for the binary symmetric channel (BSC) in a good information theory book and you will not find any unit of time in the channel capacity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simard (talk • contribs) 14:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, yes! I wasn't really awake when I wrote this. You're right, but nevertheless, no-one really talks about "channel usages". The meaningful measure is bit/s/Hz, i.e. spectral efficiency. I will update the article accordingly. Regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Jimmy Valentine

Hello Oli Filth, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Jimmy Valentine has been removed. It was removed by 76.16.44.155 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 76.16.44.155 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Removal of PROD from MurmurHash

Hello Oli Filth, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to MurmurHash has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary '(remove prod - not a clear cut case, it would be better to use AfD for this one)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Fifteen puzzle

Regarding this reversion, my edit summary was not, in fact, my opinion but a direct quote from the article which is sourced to The 15 puzzle: how it drove the world crazy; the puzzle that started the craze of 1880; how America's greatest puzzle designer, Sam Loyd, fooled everyone for 115 years a book whose title alone should be enough to establish the fact that this was not only a craze, but a notable one. SpinningSpark 21:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I love your new minimilist user page by the way. SpinningSpark 09:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough! To avoid future trigger-happy reversion, perhaps you could find a way to work this into the article body as well? Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 09:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Work what in? The title of the book do you mean? SpinningSpark 10:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, I'm clearly still half asleep! I didn't realise that the quote was already in the article. Sorry! Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 10:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Valentine

Oli, I think that there is a possible conflict of interest regarding you and the Jimmy Valentine Page. It seems almost like you have a personal vendetta against him. The reason I believe this is because bio pages aren't your MO. If I am wrong let me know. Also I want to know what we need to do to make this right. If you would like to discuss further please email me @ vagueone@gmail.com Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegrubwich (talk • contribs) 03:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you ought to read WP:Conflict of interest to see what that phrase means here. Regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 09:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If you wish for the article to remain, then you need to find sources like I've already suggested; ones that are independent and provide non-trivial coverage of the subject matter. See WP:Notability#General notability guideline for a summary. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 14:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Mr. Blotto

Hello Oli Filth, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Mr. Blotto has been removed. It was removed by Chubbles with the following edit summary '(Seems salvageable. Adding several refs; apparently there's something from Relix Magazine, too...)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Chubbles before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

About rating boxes

Hi, why are you saying that I'm adding some "promotional" material to rating boxes? I do understand the redlink stuff, but in my opinion it's ok to add proper professional reviews and ratings to the album articles. Does it matter that the review is written in Finnish? Does it matter that there's no article about Korroosio.fi website here at Wikipedia? And by the way I have no contacs to Korroosio.fi, so I don't spam links in any promotional purposes. Matiasl (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. If you weren't intentionally spamming, then I apologise; it certainly looked like you might have been.

Whilst redlinks aren't necessarily always a bad thing, in certain contexts they are inappropriate. The ratings box on album articles is one of them. We can't list every single review under the sun, so in general we try to list only those that are notable. Given that Korroosio doesn't have an article here, it's a reasonable assumption that it's not particularly notable. And yes, foreign-language links are generally not suitable on Wikipedia (see WP:External links). Regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 11:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I got that. I was just looking, for example, article about The Incident album, and found that there's a redlink review posted, and I just thought that it wouldn't matter if I post some reviews (with possible redlink) in my own language (Finnish), because it looks like only the British and US sites and magazines get their reviews and ratings to Wikipedia...

But, would it be ok if I post Korroosio (or other foreign-language) reviews (without the redlink) to the album articles that do not have any professional reviews yet? Matiasl (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Korrossio doesn't even have an article on the Finnish Wikipedia, so exactly how notable is it? I really don't think adding these links anywhere is appropriate until we can establish whether it's notable. Regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 11:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Undone Edits

I fixed a number of errors on the page, now they've been reverted. In particular, javascript does not have associatvie arrays. The ECMAScript specification says objects are name/value pairs, that's it. They do not have any of the special properties of associative arrays, so they should not be called that. Also, arrays in javascript are objects, not the other way around.

Search the archives a comp.lang.javascript, or take it up as a discussion there. 203.8.131.32 (talk) 03:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

MurmurHash

Please be more careful with your edit: you lost the update to a URL! Also, I don't know why you object to source code when three other hash articles contain it. With all due respect, you seem to be out of sync with the way things are done on Wikipedia, so maybe you should hold off on making any drastic edits to these kinds of articles until you can find some level of consensus behind you. Otherwise, this will quickly degenerate into an edit war that nobody wins. 208.80.104.2 (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

And with respect, you appear to be an IP editor with few edits, so I'm not sure what your justification is for your belief that I'm "out of sync with the way things are done on Wikipedia". I've just posted an explanation on the the article's talk page, please continue the discussion there, as that's the correct place to discuss article content.

Yes, my edits happened at almost exactly the same time as yours, so they clashed. It happens! Regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 21:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

FAC for Otto Zobel

Hi Oli (or do you prefer Mr. Filth), last month I put Otto Julius Zobel up for FAC. Even though the comments at FAC were addressed, it still failed to pass. This appears to have been due to a shortage of interested editors reviewing the article rather than any identified shortcomings in the article. So this time I am bringing it to the attention of editors I know to have been previously interested in filters or network analysis. I wonder if I could persuade you to take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Otto Julius Zobel/archive2. Please don't take this as in any way canvassing you to !vote to promote the article, or even to !vote at all. You will, of course, act as you see fit on the merits of the article. SpinningSpark 16:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"Oli" I guess ("Filth" is just a handle I've had for years and years). Unfortunately, I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the FAC process, but I will certainly take a look. Regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 16:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Me neither, but I'm learning. Thanks for that. SpinningSpark 19:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

edits on the sightglass page

Hi oli, I made some edits to this page that are very close to those you deleted. You cited copyright concerns but I have not been able to find the verbiage in question. I wrote for this firm,again as a freelancer quite some time and this information seems to be missing from the page. The existing Wikipedia entry on Sight Glasses has a photo of a sight glass from a steam locomotive. The entry as it stands almost ignores 200 years of development and focuses on boilers. Type “sight glass” into Google and you will see dozens of companies that offer modern industrial sight glasses used in chemical, pharmaceutical, food etc. processes. These modern sight glasses are completely different in construction and purpose from what is described in the current wiki. They need to be included in the entry or it is incomplete to the point of being misleading. Please let me know if this passes muster or if you can point me to the copyright concern. I may just be missing something obvious. Thanks

bctwriter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bctwriter (talk • contribs) 01:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MurmurHash (2nd nomination)

Hi, Oli Filth. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MurmurHash, you may interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MurmurHash (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wireless energy transfer

Hello Oli Filth(?)
Back @14:43, 5 April 2009 you left a note to 'GLPeterson' asking them to use edit summaries on Wireless energy transfer. You may be interested to know thay have made a large number of small changes there (18 over 90 minutes) with barely any edit summaries. I'm trying to assume good faith, but they seem to be a one issue editor. And doing it on the day after Christmas? Hope I'm not breaking any etiquette rules by advising you. Regards --220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sudoku Algorithmic Complement

I totally disagree with you. If it comes from proper research, it must not be posted on Wiki as it needs to be published before being posted. However, it won't be published here, as I am not a PhD (yet). Consequently, I cannot publish this. That is not because one has not finished his studies that his ideas are not useful for others. Think about this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merciadriluca (talk • contribs) 15:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Merciadriluca (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Merciadriluca

Please see WP:Original research, WP:Reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place to post unpublished research. Regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 17:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. I had not seen this page. However, I tried to be as much neutral as possible, but, okay, it is own-based research. Sincerely,

Algorithmics of sudoku hardest puzzles section

Oli_Filth, before I comment on your insistence on removing the hardest sudokus section, could you tell us how much do you know about Sudokus, Sudoku Programming & Sudoku forums ? SudokuFisherman (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sine wave

You are welcome to undo your removal of my comment from that talk page or at least have the civility to explain why you did it. Greglocock (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I must have clicked rollback by mistake. Undone now. 00:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

List of futurologists

You may be interested in this proposal. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Meyer

There are too many blatant factual errors in your version. --Big wheels keeps on turning (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, then bring them up on the article's talk page. Don't keep repeatedly changing the article, as that will get you nowhere fast! Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 15:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael Laughton and Stan Meyer

Will you check up on Michael Laughton and the court case to satisfy yourself?

Thank you. --Big wheels keeps on turning (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Kronecker Delta

Just realized I made a blundering error in my edit to that entry, which you then reverted before I could fix it.

Of course delta_{ij}=0^|i-j| (not |i-j|^|i-j| as I wrote).

Thanks for being vigilant..

Xamuel (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion: Merging the articles for "Hyperplane" and "Flat"

• Hyperplane
• Flat (geometry)

I'd like to discuss the possibility of merging these two articles. Your opinion on this matter is welcomed: Talk:Hyperplane#Merge to Flat (geometry) Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 20:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

GEOMETRIC COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION

Hello, Oli. You have removed the link to a webpage explaining the mathematical logic of the geometric coefficient of variation. Please explain why. Clhtnk (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Because you'd added it to the Geometric mean article, which didn't discuss the coefficient of variation. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 09:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Generalized DFT with Nonlinear Phase

Generalized DFT with nonlinear phase is a novel way to look at the Fourier analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.235.18.59 (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Oli Filth, you should scientifically justify your repetitive "undoing" of this external link on Generalized DFT with Nonlinear Phase.

I already have, in my edit summaries now, and a year ago when this research was last spammed all over Wikipedia. Before adding links to it, you will need to demonstrate that the "generalised DFT with non-linear phase" is notable. To see what I mean by "notable", please read the Wikipedia policy at WP:NOTABILITY. If you re-add this link without doing so, I will report this IP address for spamming. Regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 14:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I could not see from WP:NOTABILITY what is the WP policy for relevant external links. It gives the notability policy for an independent Wikipedia article. Generalized DFT with nonlinear phase is a relevant content to DFT and cannot have its Wikipedia article yet since it is a new novelty as of now. Therefore, I think as an independent expert on the topic, it helps the interested reader on DFT to get exposed to this recent development. I'm not aware of what you refer to that happened in the past. I got exposed to this stuff through IEEE ComSoc tutorial provided at http://dl.comsoc.org/comsocdl/?article=20343105 If you still think it should not be an external link to Discrete Fourier Transform article, I suggest you/your editorial board to incorporate this content at the most relevant topic of your choice. Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.72.91 (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ceramic Capacitor

Hello - Thank you for reviewing the links I added to this article. Please can you advise why you have removed these links. The links are not spam and purely informative and useful to the reader. Please advise, many thanks --Lindseyrose (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)