User talk:Oleg Alexandrov/Archive13

Business and Economics project chart

Oleg Alexandrov, the chart on the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics does not seem to have updated counts for Unassessed Business and Economics articles. Can you put updated counts in the chart? Maybe the whole chart needs to be updated? I'm not sure. Can you help? --Foggy Morning (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

From this diff, it updated last three days ago. It should update again at the next run I guess, in a day or two. Let me know if it does not. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you -- I didn't realize that so many stub articles are unassessed. Sorry about that! By the way, can you send company articles to the Wikiproject Companies and take them off the Business project? --Foggy Morning (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't manipulate the bot directly. The bot follows the instructions. You need to remove some tags from some article talk pages to make those articles disappear from your project. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand those instructions. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team is making a Wiki-based CD for school children. I'm glad they're doing that, but how does that relate to project tags on articles? I don't understand. --Foggy Morning (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know more than what is there. The way it works is that you tag talk pages of articles, and then the bot collects them into lists and statistics. Perhaps you can ask your question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and Economics, they know better than me which articles are tagged. I just run the bot, which articles show up in the lists is managed by individual projects. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand. Nobody is managing the Business project. How did articles get tagged? A bot tagged lots of articles. Was that your bot? I'm totally lost here.... --Foggy Morning (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It was not my bot tagging those articles. Did you already ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and Economics? Did you ask the person/bot who tagged those articles? I can't help much, there are a thousand projects over there, and all I do is using a bot to collect the data. I don't do the tagging for any of the projects. Sorry. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Look here about a tagging example. That article is part of the buisness and economics project. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

To Foggy Morning: Please give a specific example (with a link to the article) of an article which you think is being processed improperly. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Oleg Alexandrov has given me the answer. BetacommandBot tagged a bunch of articles, editors are updating the tags, and this bot is updating the Business and Econ project chart. When BetacommandBot did the tagging, there wasn't a separate project for Companies, so the companies were tagged for B&E. I don't think any of the bots are doing anything wrong. But I didn't understand that when I first asked. Thanks for your patience! --Foggy Morning (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected page

The minute the shield is lifted, the phantom strikes [1]--CSTAR (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, not very controversial so far. If there's a pattern of abuse again, then I guess it would be the right thing to reprotect the page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

FL-Class

Is there something special I have to do for the bot to recognize a new category? It is not reading Category:FL-Class Texas road transport articles. Thanks. --Holderca1 ^talk 17:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

here. The bot that is run by hand was using a version of the code older than the one ran automatically (they are on two different servers). That is fixed now. Thanks for the report. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, thank you. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Mathematical portal

Sorry if you think that my English is so bad. Anyway, I would have certainly marked these categories for speedy after having updated the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics page. The redirects were done to avoid the reader to be confused. However, your rationale stating "Unneeded" is not a CSD, though the other reasons are. This category will be more and more useful, when the number of portals related to mathematics will grow. I add that mentionning the name of the contributor is generally considered uncivil when the creation was in good faith. Cheers, Cenarium (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That was a bit of haste on my part, sorry about that. I do not think I mentioned your name in the deletion of that category, perhaps that was the automated message that adds the contributor's name. I had seen that you already created Category:Mathematics portals, which I think is indeed the correct wording, and I think redirects from categories are not that usual or that useful. No hard feelings I hope. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings at all. I was referring to my name in the deletion logs [2][3], the name of the creator is almost never given. The redirects were only temporary as I explained. Cenarium (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Creating FL-class category

I'm currently trying to create a category for FL-class college football articles for Wikipedia:WikiProject College football. My goal is to have them show up on the "rating scorecard" under the assessment portion of the project, but I'm not sure how to set the articles up so that the bot will read them. Could you help? Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

See if the instructions (which are linked from WP:1.0/I) are of help. If that does not work, let me know. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Your instructions were a help, but unfortunately, the bot doesn't seem to recognize the FL-class items. I've created a category for them, but none of the articles in this section seem to have been picked up. Any suggestions? JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That is because the category is empty. You need to first rate the talk pages of those articles as FL-Class. Then they will show up in the category. Then you can run the bot as written in the instructions, and hopefully the articles will show up in the table. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have rated them as FL-class, which is why it's so puzzling. Everything in this list under the featured list section is listed as FL-class, and nothing is showing up. Is it a problem with the template itself? JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, they appear to be showing up in the "unassessed" category. That would indicate a problem with the template, correct? JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I got someone to fix the template, so that category is starting to populate now. Thanks for all your help. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not do much, but glad you solved it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot

This may have been suggested before (I admit I'm too lazy to check), but it may be helpful to include a note as to the currency of the information in templates such as this one. I see this information is arleady included in the edit summary, so adding it to the templates should be fairly trivial? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue that since the bot runs very often (every four days), the information is already up to date, so a date stamp may not be needed (it would also distract from the table of numbers to start with, and it won't look good in transclusions). However, you can, if you wish, raise this proposal at WT:1.0/I to see what others say. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. It's probably hard to predict whether the date would be distracting or not without giving at a try, though.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I notice a number of people have change the run frequency description on the main index page. I have reverted these as I believe they are based on a misunderstanding. Would you like to have a look at this an clarify please. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Help with moving

Hi Oleg, can you, please, move "Prolate" to "Prolate spheroid" (which currently redirects back to it)? Also, why can't anyone move it? I thought that the rule was, if a page X has no edit history (aside from redirects), then another page can be moved to X. Thanks! Arcfrk (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. I think if the page has some history at all, except for being a redirect after a move, then one can't move another page over it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

massremoval of articles

There is a mass removal of articles according to your bot. Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Germany_articles_by_quality_log, while there has been no changes to the banners itself. Has there been an alteration in the bots code? Agathoclea (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There has been no change in the bot code either. I'll try to think about what may be going on. Let's also see if other projects experienced this. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot progress

I've made progress on the WP 1.0 bot code, and the API bug that was holding up progress has been fixed. I'm about ready to try a complete run with the new code. I have been testing it on individual projects today, and I have it to a point where it seems to match the behavior of the old code. I'm going to do some more individual testing, and if that's good I will probably start a full run this weekend. I'll turn off the old code on kiwix when I do that.

The cgi script seems to run on a different server, right? I don't think there is any issue if it continues to run while the test is in progress.

I made an announcement at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index#WP_1.0_bot_trials to let people know to watch for any errors in the new code.

— Carl (CBM · talk) 01:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Let me know if I should replace the CGI script on the other server (if kiwix supports cgi scripts we can move the script there too, BTW).

I'd like to note that I made some changes to the old script on the kiwix server, by adding FL-Class, for example. You can see the changes with the SVN repository by doing

svn diff -rHEAD wp10_routines.pl

in the old dir. Thanks! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

List updater

[4] $\implies {\ddot {\frown }}$

Any hope for a recovery? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at this later today. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed now, thanks for pointing this out. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like I have some work cut out for me ... *sigh* -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Updating comments with WP 1.0 bot

Hi. Does WP 1.0 bot update the comments column anymore? SeanMD80 (talk · contribs) just performed a reassessment with comments on six articles for WP:HAWAII (Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Hawaii articles by quality) and after running the bot manually, the comments column was not populated. Has that feature been turned off? —Viriditas | Talk 10:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There has been no change, and the bot works well for most projects, I think. Try to take a quick look at the instructions (reached from WP:1.0/I), or compare with another project which uses comments. Most likely some category is not set up right. If this does not help, let me know. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. The problem seems to be with Template:WPHawaii. The instructions points to code that is supposed to detect comments subpages. —Viriditas | Talk 08:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that another editor moved the template to another name a week ago, so I moved it back. I'm curious if that had anything to do with it. I'll play around with it some more. —Viriditas | Talk 09:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Finite difference

What is unclear in my formula. Test it, the formula is exact for third degree polynomials and approximative for any continuous function. Should i include its development?.penman (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have references for it? The notation is very complex, and I fail to see how it is used or how it improves the article. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have developed the formula myself. It is uses to translate differential equations to groups of

linear equations. Deleting the dots the matrix $M={\frac {1}{6h}}{\begin{vmatrix}-11&18&-9&2\\-2&-3&6&-1\\1&-6&3&2\\-2&9&-18&11\end{vmatrix}}D=d/dx.$

I will write some examples and continue to function approximations and integral equations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pentti71 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia accepts only published material, see WP:NOR. Either way, I am not sure what you wrote is important or interesting for the article. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OK I will publish my development only in my homepage: http://koti.mbnet.fi/~pentti71/diffcalc/index.html penman (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Change

I made a change to Template:Afd top, instead of {{subst:Afd top}}, I added a {{{1}}}, so now users can enter {{subst:Afd top|TEXT HERE ~~~~}}. Fallen Angel 17:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(Belated) thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC

I've started drafting a user conduct RfC that you might be interested in here. There's a lot of evidence to locate, sift through and present, so I think it will take awhile to get it put together. If you'd like to participate, please feel free to do so. Cla68 (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Invitaţie ro:Proiect:Chişinău

Bună ziua! Odată ce locuiţi în Republica Moldova, sper că putem dezvolta împreună articolul ro:Chişinău. Vedeţi în acest sens ro:Proiect:Chişinău. Mulţumesc. Giku (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I've seen your important contributions for the article Recurrence relation. I'm looking for the general (non-iterative) non-trigonometric expression for the exact trigonometric constants of the form: ${\begin{aligned}\cos {\frac {\pi }{2^{n}}}\end{aligned}}$, when n is natural (and is not given in advance). Do you know of any such general (non-iterative) non-trigonometric expression? (note that any exponential-expression-over-the-imaginaries is also excluded since it's trivially equivalent to a real-trigonometric expression).

• Let me explain: if we choose n=1 then the term ${\begin{aligned}\cos {\frac {\pi }{2^{n}}}\end{aligned}}$ becomes "0", which is a simple (non-trigonometric) constant. If we choose n=2 then the term ${\begin{aligned}\cos {\frac {\pi }{2^{n}}}\end{aligned}}$ becomes ${\begin{aligned}{\frac {1}{\sqrt {2}}}\end{aligned}}$, which is again a non-trigonometric expression. etc. etc. Generally, for every natural n, the term ${\begin{aligned}\cos {\frac {\pi }{2^{n}}}\end{aligned}}$ becomes a non-trigonometric expression. However, when n is not given in advance, then the very expression ${\begin{aligned}\cos {\frac {\pi }{2^{n}}}\end{aligned}}$ per se - is a trigonometric expression. I'm looking for the general (non-iterative) non-trigonometric expression equivalent to ${\begin{aligned}\cos {\frac {\pi }{2^{n}}}\end{aligned}}$, when n is not given in advance. If not for the cosine - then for the sine or the tangent or the cotangent.

Eliko (talk) 08:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well,

$\cos {\frac {\pi }{4}}={\frac {\sqrt {2}}{2}}$

Then,

$\cos {\frac {\pi }{8}}={\sqrt {\frac {1+\cos {\frac {\pi }{4}}}{2}}}$

$={\sqrt {\frac {1+{\frac {\sqrt {2}}{2}}}{2}}}$

$={\frac {1}{2}}{\sqrt {2+{\sqrt {2}}}}.$

In the same way,

$\cos {\frac {\pi }{16}}={\frac {1}{2}}{\sqrt {2+{\sqrt {2+{\sqrt {2}}}}}},$ etc.

I don't know any other way. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is an iterative way. I'm looking for the general (non-iterative) formula, i.e. for the closed formula. Anyways, thank you for your reply. Eliko (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index question

Hello, Oleg. I don't know if you've seen it yet, but I'm working a wikiproject management tool called Igor. At the moment I'm trying to put together a wikiproject browser, which attempts to merge data from several sources (especially here and here), using the project's project page as the closest thing available to a unique identifier. This brings be to my question: from where does WP 1.0 bot get the information about the various projects that it uses to build Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index? Looking through it, I'm seeing a few duplicate projects pages. For the most part the duplications make sense, like projects and task-forces that use the same project page, but a couple of them make me wonder. For example, the index lists the AFC and Anthropology projects as having their project page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. Is this the result of a misconfiguration somewhere, or did the bot try to mine the data and come up with the wrong answer? Many thanks in advance, and many more thanks for your work with the bots! – ClockworkSoul 01:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The bot gets its information from the subcategories of Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments, see for example Category:Stub-Class Alaska articles. People rate talk pages, the talk pages get put in categories, and the bot collects that information. More detail is at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot. See if that's helpful, and let me know if you have further questions. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that you want to look at the function get_wikiproject in the file wp10_routines.pl in the WP 1.0 bot source code. It basically just makes a sequence of guesses hoping to find a page that exists. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you are talking about the "Wikiproject" column in the index. That's indeed based on some guesses reading the base category for each table row. I don't think that information is that vital, and people can always fix their project in the index, the bot won't overwrite the information. As far as using that information for your project, we'll that's bot generated information, and while it is mostly reliable, it can't be completely accurate. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. :) The reason I ask is because the closest thing I can come up with for a unique project identifier is the project's page, which is mission critical for Igor, so I'm just poking around to see how I might get the cleanest possible data. The kind of project name collision I'm talking about only affects 40 entries on that page, so I don't think I'll have to worry about it too much any time soon. Just to be sure I understand, though, if I correct the "Wikiproject" value on the index page, the bot won't overwrite it? – ClockworkSoul 01:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, the bot won't overwrite the wikiproject if you correct it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That makes my life much easier - thanks! – ClockworkSoul 03:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mathbot and OldAfD's

Yo Oleg, I want to add these shortcuts (see right) to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs but Mathbot has removed them. Can you get it to leave them alone? Thanks, Skomorokh 15:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll modify the bot code to that effect, hopefully in the next several days. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks. Skomorokh 14:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

move request

De Branges' theorem --> Bieberbach conjecture

I left a comment on the talk page a couple years ago:

So the article says it was formerly called the Bieberbach conjecture. I found that odd as I've always thought of it as Bieberbach conjecture, and heard it often referred that way. Do specialists really call it de Branges' theorem? A preliminary look through MathSciNet, seems to indicate that "the de Branges theorem" actually refers to a more general theorem that implies (among other important stuff) the Bieberbach conjecture. --C S (Talk) 07:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I looked through search results on Google Scholar, and I don't find any reference to De Branges' theorem other than those refer to either other or more general results. It appears the name is still "Bieberbach conjecture".

--C S (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I can easily do the move, but would like other people to comment on that first. Let's continue at WT:WPM#Bieberbach conjecture. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

{{afd-top}}

I am editing the template so the result may be completed easily in the template instead of outside the template as in: The result was {{{1}}}. BoL (Talk) 03:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. If the bot breaks as a result of the edit, then please let me know and I'll try to fix it back. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Now I need approval from the other two bot owners...:D BoL (Talk) 03:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot

Hi, a request for Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Geology_articles_by_quality_statistics.

Could you please link the number in each cell to the relevant category? For example, "Category:Mid-importance Stub-class Geology articles"

The relevant importance specifiers are:

Top, High, Mid, Low, Unknown

for importance, and

Fa, A, Ga, B, Start, Stub, List, Unknown

for class.

Thanks a lot!

Verisimilus T 15:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Putting in those links would require big changes to how the bot locates categories. Given that very few projects use such intersection categories, I would be reluctant to work on implementing this. Also, if this is implemented the bot would have to check for the presence of these categories for all projects, which would slow down the bot to some extent. Sorry. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I've worked out an alternative way to implement this function using {PAGESINCATEGORY}. Therefore the bot no longer needs to update the page. Could you remove it from your list of pages to update, please? Thanks. Verisimilus T 11:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll need to remove your project from Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments. Then the bot won't update anything about the project. Sorry for this all-or-nothing approach, but I can't tweak the bot for individual projects, they are too many. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit wary about withdrawing the entire project from Category:WikiProjects participating in Wikipedia 1.0 assessments, because the category participates in WP1.0 assessments. Surely it would not be too difficult to make the bot respect the {{bots}} template tag? (I appreciate that it's unwanted faff maintaining a bot, but I'm not sure that using a category erected for a different purpose to generate a task list is entirely appropriate.) Thanks Verisimilus T 07:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I can exclude your wikiproject on the server side, so that the bot will no longer update its data, as if you had removed it from the category. An alternative would be for you to create your table somewhere other than the location the bot writes to, and allow the bot to continue updating its table in parallel. I agree with Oleg that, because of the number of projects involved, each project can choose whether to participate in the bot or not, but it's an all-or-nothing choice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, I've solved this problem by creating a template somewhere else. A bit more leg work, but the simplest solution all round I guess. Thanks for your time here! Verisimilus T 16:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Two things

Oleg,

On the WP 1.0 bot front, things are going well. For some reason the bot has been getting truncated data from the wikipedia server on occasion, which makes it crash trying to parse malformed XML. I am going to add some exception handling so that the bot will just fetch the data again if it is malformed. It did finish a complete run starting Sunday, which took about 54 hours. Nobody seems to have complained about bugs, so I will remove the "test code" part of the edit summary soon.

On the mathematics side of things, someone mentioned complex number on WT:WPM, but when I edited that page I ran into an editor who is quick to revert. You've participated there before, and if you haven't sworn off that page I'd appreciate any thoughts about my comments on the talk page. My main concern is with "In mathematics, a complex number is a number which can be formally defined as an ordered pair of real numbers (a,b)", which I find vague to the point of not defining anything - many things besides complex numbers can be defined as pairs of real numbers. I do appreciate the desire to keep the lede straightforward, and avoid adding too much content, but I think that what we do say needs to have a little more meaning than that. I would rather if it said "represented by a pair of real numbers", since I think this avoids the non-definition and also matches the common viewpoint that the complex plane is simply one interpretation of the complex field. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for working on WP 1.0! It is really awesome you have taken the time to work on this (I remember how time-consuming this affair can be).

I commented on talk:complex number on the introduction. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Version 1.0 Bot

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Sheffield Wednesday articles by quality statistics hasn't been updated for over 8 days. Any idea what the problem might be? Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 20:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It was updated on April 6 as well; if the table doesn't change there will be no record of the update at the table page. The last update is recorded at the bottom of Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Sheffield_Wednesday_articles_by_quality. The plan is to get automatic updates to run two times per week, but they have only run once per week the last two weeks. You can also run manual updates by following the links from User:WP 1.0 bot. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's answered my question. Thanks Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 20:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

systolic geometry

Hi,

Hope all is well. I added an explanation of the figure in the article. I am not too good with hyperlinks. If you get a chance, could you please link the picture and the explanation somehow? Katzmik (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I put a link. I hope that's what you wanted. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Katzmik (talk) 08:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Inverse function

Please comment at talk:Inverse function and stop reverting the article in the meantime. 213.114.200.31 (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, mutual cease-fire. :) I think the issue is settled now. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at WPM

Thank you for your support, Oleg. Unfortunately, it is not just the question of how something should be written. As I stated in the beginning of my post at the math project talk page, I am truly sick of repeated attacks on my contributions and on me personally. There is no doubt that they are intended to bully other editors into falling in line with MathSci's preferred version of the articles that he has contributed to, and deter them from editing these articles. I asked Geometry Guy for help the previous time a thing like that had happened, since I was sure it wasn't the last time, but he didn't want to do anything about it. I do not enjoy quarreling and I cannot stand denigrating comments embedded into edit summaries (even if they are factually wrong). It was fun contributing to what I think is slated to be an encyclopaedia of the future, and I have enjoyed meeting other enthusiasts and even an occasional old friend. It is too bad that a single SOB can be capable of poisoning the whole experience, but under the circumstances, I think that withdrawing permanently is the best solution for me. I wish you much success in your difficult and admirable task. Arcfrk (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't do that. In my case, it was not a lack of "want" but a lack of time and knowing where to start to come up with a solution to this issue. I'm glad Carl and Oleg have been helpful and hope that some of the other avenues you have explored will yield fruit. Orbifold is certainly a bloated and unsourced mess, which will be extremely difficult to fix. I might try instead to help out at Surface related articles. Geometry guy 11:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had my share of frustrating experiences with another editor recently, and I understand what you mean. All I can do is repeat my earlier suggestion that if you encounter problems with this editor in the future at any article, just ask at WT:WPM for outside review. There is no other way to deal with editors who are problematic, I think. And hope you're not leaving for good. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Urgent

Oleg, could you stop the piglet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NewPorosenok please? dima (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that "porosenok" got blocked. Thanks for your note. Usually, the quickest response can be obtained by writing on WP:AN/I. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Potential problem

I've been trying to run the WP 1.0 bot to update Category:Ships articles by quality, which has not been updated for almost a week. I have tried to run the bot three times, and it stalls on me. To make sure the bot was working correctly, I tested it on Category:Maritime warfare articles by quality about 9 hours ago, and it worked. Could you look in to this problem? -MBK₀₀₄ 17:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The bot stalls on long projects indeed. I think is is not bot's fault, the web server just cuts it off. For big projects it is better not to use the web interface but to wait for the bot to update the page in batch mode.

The bot has been running a bit more seldom recently, due to some transition and testing done to it. I think it should come back to frequent runs soon (ask Carl to be sure). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I ran the ships project by hand just now. The transition process has been very nice from the point of view of not breaking any wiki pages, but there are still some issues with the unreliability of the wikipedia servers. I hope that the bot runs two times per week at least, but it has been more like once per week to complete a full run for the past few weeks. This is still an improvement, though; the previous code was almost never finishing the biography project. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that explains both of my questions (why it stalls, and the lack of recent updates). -MBK₀₀₄ 05:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Liouville equation

Hello,

Could you please create a disambiguation page for Liouville's equation? The page Liouville equations should be moved to Liouville's equation. Katzmik (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Katzmik (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

exponential map

Hello,

I noticed your comment on Fropuff's page concerning exponential map. I think the page should definitely be split into two, with a disambiguation page 1. exponential map (Lie theory); 2. exponential map (Riemannian geometry). The third section (on bi-invariant metrics) can be included in both.

Both references are mostly on the Riemannian side, although Cheeger and Ebin discuss Lie theory as well. If noone adds Lie theoretic references I will try to. Katzmik (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I will reply at talk:exponential map. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

template:science portalbar!

hello, i saw you nominating this template for deletion. but i hope you would surely love to see improved coverage of portals. for eg. compare this ratio with this one. it means this template has increased wikipedia's coverage by 4 times. i hope you might wish to withdraw your proposal. thanks for your kind efforts in making wikipedia a better encyclopedia. i appreciate your contributions. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Vector Image

Hello. I wish to know what software you used in creating this [5]vector image. My work will be much improved. Thanks

Draco Kohakunushi (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I used Inkscape. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Splitting space

It would be great to get your opinions on making space the disambiguation page for the subject. See here. Thanks Andeggs (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I replied at talk:space. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index is too big

I noticed today that Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index will show up as a blank page for many people. Some diagnosis with the site admins on IRC says it's because the page is too big and Mediawiki runs out of memory trying to serve it. So the bot script will have to be changed to split the index over two or more pages.

Do you have time to look at that? I don't think I will have time for a while. I think (hope) that the bot will still work even if we are unable to view the page. But people will start to complain soon I would guess.

WP 1.0 bot is a very nice script, and I was impressed with what it does when I was working on the code. But I think it is starting to burst at the seams with all the data it is storing on the DB. (As I say this, it is uploading the lists for the Biography project). I hope you will not be offended if I start thinking about "son of WP 1.0 bot" that uses some other backend instead of wiki pages, and would display the tables as HTML pages on kiwix or toolserver. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to work on this, perhaps in a day. It should not be a lot of work.

I agree the script is running against its limits. I would not mind at all if it is replaced, but I don't have time to do it myself. You're more than welcome to give it a try. Let's hope that the replication server won't have the same problems it had a couple of years ago when it was weeks/months behind.

Before something of this magnitude is undertaken, however, we may want to consult with the other folks at WP 1.0 and see if they agree with migrating the whole thing off Wikipedia. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Done (belately). Now there is Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index2 where the second part of the index resides, with the first part in the old place, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. This is a stop-gap measure, more thought needs to be given to how best to split a big index into subindices. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(hijacking the thread) Well, this gives us the opportunity to split the index in theme-based areas (e.g. using the Directory as a content index) and split the bot according to the directory tree. That way, that gives another incentive to keep the Directory up to date. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. But unfortunately the time I have for Wikipedia recently is little and sporadic due to work and family commitments, and I feel that the thing you propose could take a good amount of time. Is there anybody else who is willing to work on such a routine? I can help debug it and hook it up in the main code. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Re Tixotd: I am hoping to form a group going in the next month or so to work on redesigning WP 1.0 bot. Although the motivation for a redesign is mostly that the bot has outgrown the methods it uses, we can add new features like this at the same time. Would you be interested in helping plan the redesign? I need both people who can write code and people who can discuss what the user-visible results of the code should be. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I know zero Perl, but if I can help some other way, sure. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Question about renamed project

Hey Oleg, I was wondering if your bot can use the proper link on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Green Bay Packers articles by quality. As you can see the two links to the project page and talk page are the old names of the WikiProject. A while back, the project was renamed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Green Bay Packers. I was wondering if you could put the new name and link on that page? Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 08:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that if you put the new name in the index, the bot will propagate it everywhere else at the next run. Try to see if it works. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That worked! Thanks a lot! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 17:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

most linked

Hello.

Whatever happened to most linked math articles? Katzmik (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is in the old place, at User:Mathbot/Most linked math articles. It has not been updated since August I think. I have very little free time to work on it recently, I'll try to update it at some point though. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a blank page to me. JRSpriggs (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a long-time bug in Mediawiki that has started to be more prevalent lately. If a page is too big and complex, Mediawiki will run out of memory, and the page will come back blank. The only solution is to make the page smaller by breaking it into parts. There isn't any way to predict when this will happen, all we can do is react to it. This is the third page in the last week that I have seen have this problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I split the page in two, the second part is at User:Mathbot/Most linked math articles2. Again, the page needs to be updated, when I find some more time for wiki activities. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

As per the boxed request at the top of Template talk:RfA, I'm informing you that I've made some edits to Template:RfA. The Transhumanist    23:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. That change is unlikely to break the bot, if it does, I'll patch it up. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

defintions will come to RV

I don't understand your edit summary. When you write, "They will come later." do you mean later in time, or later in the article? Pdbailey (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant later in the article. I think it is good to start an article as informally and as simple as possible, and leave the more complex things for later. People should get the intuition first, before formal definitions. Otherwise too many people complain that math articles are too hard to read. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I wanted to clear that up before starting a discussion on the talk page. Pdbailey (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Skytran/Unimodal Page

Hi,

I just noticed that the page for SkyTran has been deleted (it has since been replaced with a ghost of what was once there). Because that page was deleted Image:SkyTran Seattle2.jpg was orphaned, and then deleted. I am extremely upset that this has happend. I and many other users have spend hours and hours on making that page complete, cited, and objective. Whoever deleted that page should have their admin rights completely and permenantly revoked. Whoever did that has greatly abused their power.

I suspect that the deletion was not either a mistake, nor a good faith deletion because that page was relatively large - it was not a stub.

Given that, would you mind looking up what happened to that page and let me know? A link to the afd (if there was one..) would be nice.

Thanks, Fresheneesz (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the deletion log.

A file with this name was previously uploaded, but has been deleted.

You should consider whether it is appropriate to upload this file. The deletion log for this file name is provided below:

    * 10:57, 26 April 2008 East718 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:<!-- -->SkyTran Seattle2.jpg" ‎ (CSD I5: Non-free image that was not used for more than seven days) (restore)

I'd be hesitant to restore it since the image is not free and unused. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you misunderstood me. The picture is a very secondary issue. The deletion of the page SkyTran is what I am most concerned with. That page's deletion *caused* the disuse of the aforementioned picture. I care much less about the picture. Fresheneesz (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Here it is.

Deletion log

    * 16:14, 15 April 2008 MZMcBride (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "SkyTran" ‎ (csd r1) (restore)

Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

And for UniModal:

Deletion log

    * 23:08, 12 April 2008 JDoorjam (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "UniModal" ‎ (Reading through the article's history, it becomes clear that this was added to the project as purely promotional material. The bare bones that remain seem to outline an untested idea that no one wants to invest in.) (restore)
    * 03:15, 12 June 2006 JzG (Talk | contribs | block) restored "UniModal" ‎ (history merge)
    * 03:14, 12 June 2006 JzG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "UniModal" ‎ (Merging history) (restore)
    * 03:13, 12 June 2006 JzG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "UniModal" ‎ (Merging history) (restore)
    * 20:37, 5 June 2006 Marudubshinki (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "UniModal" ‎ (content was: '{{dated prod|concern = {{{concern|I would like this page (''and its talk page'') deleted in order for me to move the page UniModal/proposed here.}...') (restore)
    * 00:34, 19 April 2006 JzG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "UniModal" ‎ (content was: '#REDIRECT Personal rapid transit/UniModal' (and the only contributor was 'Non-poster')) (restore)

Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

In your opinion, do you think this page was deleted properly? DO you think it should be restored. I strongly believe that this delete is a gross abuse. Fresheneesz (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You can start a deletion review if you wish. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks very much. Fresheneesz (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Rename baryon decuplet image

The word "baryon" is misspelled in the title of Image:Barion decuplet.svg, but there does not seem to be any way for an ordinary user like me to move it to the correct name. Would you please move it? JRSpriggs (talk) 11:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, see Image:Baryon decuplet.svg. I also moved to commons. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Oleg. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetical order

Oleg, could you look at the thread about your bot incorrectly alphabetizing things at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Signature (in mathematical logic)

I have nominated Signature (in mathematical logic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Old

Hi there - it looks like MathBot didn't pick up the deletion discussions for 29 April last night? Black Kite 01:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess the server was down. Apparently now it is working. Thanks for the note. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

bibliography format for mathematics articles

Hello,

I noticed that bibliographical references in math articles tend to follow the format usually used for physics papers. This is a bit odd. I suggest the mathscinet format. I have used it in all the articles I have written. There are a number of differences. For example, the year, instead of appearing in parentheses at the beginning of the entry, appears toward the end (before page numbers). Katzmik (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Try raising this at the math wikiproject to see what people say. I am not sure there is an easy fix though. Wikipedia being a general-purpose encyclopedia, makes it harder to compartmentalize articles, I think, and we may have to live with many reference styles. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I did, and it certainly led to a lively discussion, though I seem to be in the minority of 1 (one). Katzmik (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Mathbot, where are you?

We noticed that there have not be any recent changes to the mathlists. We miss him and his incredible useful service! JackSchmidt (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I did not notice. Something happened to the computer the bot is running on, I found the daily cron job wiped out, and had to restore it. I now ran the bot by hand, and from tomorrow it will hopefully be back on regular schedule. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

In the good ole days we had a cronjob on each server to restart cron on the other servers. What with budget cuts, these days we can only afford a cronjob to restart cron on the local server. What could possibly go wrong?

A tireless machine can only continue with a tireless mechanic willing to grease it occasionally. Thanks for your tireless work! JackSchmidt (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

WP1.0 Bot

Let me know what you need, ill be glad to help, if i can Rankun (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) But can you specify what you are willing to help with? :) My current need is to have a place at which to run the bot, and recently I was told that the system administrator at a server associated with Wikipedia will let me run it. Did you mean help with this? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Default thumbnail size

Hi. Note that default thumbnail size is a user-settable option. If you find default-sized thumbnail images too small on your screen, you should change the setting in your user preferences.--Srleffler (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. You are right. However, some pictures just don't show well as thumbnails. I don't want all the thumbnails to show up huge on my screen, but sometimes pictures must be bigger, to see what is going on in them. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted edit

Recently, you deleted me edit to pascal's triangle:

Below are rows zero to sixteen of Pascal's triangle in table form (even numbers highlighted):

row #	Pascal's triangle
0																	1
1																1		1
2															1		2		1
3														1		3		3		1
4													1		4		6		4		1
5												1		5		10		10		5		1
6											1		6		15		20		15		6		1
7										1		7		21		35		35		21		7		1
8									1		8		28		56		70		56		28		8		1
9								1		9		36		84		126		126		84		36		9		1
10							1		10		45		120		210		252		210		120		45		10		1
11						1		11		55		165		330		462		462		330		165		55		11		1
12					1		12		66		220		495		792		924		792		495		220		66		12		1
13				1		13		78		286		715		1287		1716		1716		1287		715		286		78		13		1
14			1		14		91		364		1001		2002		3003		3432		3003		2002		1001		364		91		14		1
15		1		15		105		455		1365		3003		5005		6435		6435		5005		3003		1365		455		105		15		1
16	1		16		120		560		1820		4368		8008		11440		12870		11440		8008		4368		1820		560		120		16		1

Why? how is it not an improvement from the old one:

Below are rows zero to sixteen of Pascal's triangle:

                                                1
                                             1     1
                                          1     2     1
                                       1     3     3     1
                                    1     4     6     4     1
                                 1     5    10    10     5     1
                              1     6    15    20    15     6     1
                           1     7    21    35    35    21     7     1
                        1     8    28    56    70    56    28     8     1
                     1     9    36    84    126   126   84    36     9     1
                  1    10    45    120   210   252   210   120   45    10     1
               1    11    55    165   330   462   462   330   165   55    11     1
            1    12    66    220   495   792   924   792   495   220   66    12     1
         1    13    78    286   715  1287  1716  1716  1287   715   286   78    13     1
      1    14    91    364  1001  2002  3003  3432  3003  2002  1001   364   91    14     1
   1    15    105  455   1365  3003  5005  6435  6435  5005  3003  1365   455   105   15     1
1    16    120   560  1820  4368  8008  11440 12870 11440 8008  4368  1820   560   120  16     1

? Please give me a good reason why the new one should not replace the old one. And I do not think that memory and/or space is an issue.— Supuhstar * § 18:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I find the plain text triangle easier on the eyes than the table with cells and colors. I don't think it is relevant to color the even terms. I don't think adding the cells makes things align better. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

On the contratry,

1. the coloring of the evens is mentioned further down the article
2. I cannot see how it is not easier on the eyes, as it is easier to read, the rows are labeled, and the numbers are clearly separated.
3. How does it not make thing align better if they are, in fact, perfectly alingned?
4. Finally, these are all opinions, and that is quite bias, which I believe is against one if not a few Wikipedian policies to remove something based on the fact that you simply "find the plain text triangle easier on the eyes" or "don't think adding the cells makes things align better," when many more people might say the exact opposite.

These are facts, not oppinions, and I would like them to be seen as such. — Supuhstar * § 21:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's bring this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Pascal's triangle. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot and moved pages

Someone noticed a bug and reported it at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Pages_renamed. I'm not sure what causes that, so I added more debugging to the code to diagnose it. It may be that I need to change the way redirects are located; the API can resolve them itself now, and may be more reliable. I'll look into it again next week. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I replied there. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Mathbot

See this thread. The count on the RfA talk was totally off. Enigma ^message 02:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

wait, I think I figured it out. It generated it for the wrong user. My guess would be that the user generating the RfA didn't do it properly, because the bot thought it was for Blueking. Enigma ^message 02:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I replied there. The user did not enter his user name correctly, and that caused the problem. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot web form

Are you still searching for a home for the web form used for running this bot? -- Longhair\^talk 04:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Things are OK for now, I was allowed to run it on the kiwix.fr server where the regular scheduled bot runs also. Thanks for asking. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Assessment bot

I think you run the assessment bot, and I was wondering if it was possible to have it pick up and record the bottom-importance parameter a couple of WikiProjects have instigated. The category is Category:Bottom-importance articles. Thanks for your time and all the effort you have put into the bot, regardless of what you decide. Hiding T 21:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The bot does not support this category for the moment. I am reluctant to add support for categories not agreed by WP 1.0 people as that's too much maintainance on my side, with more than a thousand projects currently. If you want this category to become standard and be supported for all projects, you can ask at WT:1.0/I. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: synergetics coordinates

I replied again to you on talk:synergetics coordinates, and changed the article like you suggested: I think your notation is clearer and would probably be used if I was ever shown ℝ with ₊ and ⁿ.--Dchmelik (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion policy

Please check out the situation with Systolic geometry for a beginner. Katzmik (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot

Hello! Could you please update the external links section in the bot's user page? Spent quite some time today in finding the new link. Thanks!--thunderboltz^(TALK) 16:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I updated it in the instructions, but forgot about the bot page. Done now. Thanks for pointing this out. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

How do I get the comments updated?

Hi. What do I need to do to get the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands_articles by quality table to update the comments? So far, they appear blank, but most of the 42 articles have comments. Thanks for any help you can offer. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The page Talk:Northwestern Hawaiian Islands should appear in Category:Northwestern Hawaiian Islands articles with comments for the bot to see it. Then at the next bot run it will be picked up. See how this is done for the other projects on that talk page. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like (once again) a problem with {{WPHawaii}}. Thanks again. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Small aesthetic change to MathBot

Hi there. For your MathBot (the one that posts a link to the editsummary usage), it might just be a good thing to make it post to toolserver.org instead of tools.wikimedia.org. Thanks! Soxred 93 05:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I did not know about the new IP address. I'll have the bot point to the new location soon. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

QR and mathdab

Your comment was (too little math to belong in Category:Mathematical disambiguation). I would suggest that since there is a non-trivial mathematical disambiguation, that is sufficient to warrant the categorisation. Would you like to say why you think not? After all, there are plenty of mathdab pages with three or fewer references. Richard Pinch (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel that adding this to Category:Mathematical disambiguation (and therefore also to list of mathematics articles (Q) would add much value, as QR is more a general purpose disambig than a math disambig. But I don't feel strongly about it, and I'll leave it up to you to decide what you think is best. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

redirect Aitken's method

Hi Oleg, you changed the redirect of Aitken delta-squared process to Sequence transformations, I just undid this after re-establishing the former article. I think Sequence transformations is extremely ill written, it starts with a plainly wrong statement (in fact it seems to be about acceleration of convergence, rather). IMHO sequence transformations should be a) spelled in singular, b) contain material about generic sequence transformations (binomial, ...). Since you know the math part of WP way better than me, I invite you to participate in the discussion at Talk:Sequence transformations and give links to relevant material.— MFH:Talk 14:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I replied there. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

More WP bot

If you haven't seen it already, you may want to keep an eye on Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Ratification vote on C-Class, as it would add a new "by quality" class if there's consensus to do so. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I replied there. No problem supporting this on the technical side with WP 1.0 bot, once this poll is over and a decision is achieved (let me know what the decision would be in due time). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No new articles?

If we can believe what is says at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity, no new articles have appeared since June 1st. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The machine on which the bot ran had problems. I think things should be back to normal tonight when Jitse's bot runs. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

DFBot replacement?

Did you have any luck putting together a DFBot replacement? xenocidic (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have the code from Dragons flight. I have much less free time lately, and I don't know when I'll get to looking into it (especially considering that it is written in Python using the pywikipedia framework, while all my own coding was done in Perl). My own bot generates WP:OAFD, which, while not having information about what the tallies are, at least shows which discussions are open.

I do plan to get his bot working again, but this will be very long term. Anybody else having more time/python skills? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've none at all, sir. =) I did create somewhat of a quick-hack workaround using PAGESINCAT for the categories I was looking to focus on, see User:Xenocidic/dashboard. only a few cats are colour coded at the moment though. xenocidic (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Boardvote sitenotice

As you removed the boardvote from the sitenotice, thought you might be interested in commenting at MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice#Boardvote. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Lie group image

Hi Oleg,

I came across this helpful image created by you. I'm having trouble editing it, so I thought perhaps I just ask you: Could you help me creating a copy which shows in addition that the thing is a manifold? I mean, just color a little arc in the lower part somehow reddish and make an isomorphism arrow and a line underneath, such that the image caption can explain that it is an local diffeo? I want to put this on the group article, whose readers may/will not know what a manifold is.

Thank you,

Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's something I tried, you can tweak it further in inkscape (this program is rather easy to use). Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Perfect! I'll try out inkscape at some time. Currently I always use Mathematica, which is sometimes troublesome. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

ru:Википедия:Проект:Альбомы

Добрый день,

Не могли бы вы пожалуйста помочь с ботом User:WP 1.0 bot для правильного обслуживания страницы ru:Википедия:Проект:Издание Википедии/Статьи проекта Альбомы по качеству. Большое спасибо заранее.--Rubikonchik (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I am writing in English because I don't have a Russian keyboard and my English is better than my Russian.

I would be very happy to give away the bot code for use at the Russian Wikipedia, and I will gladly help make it work.

However, I cannot supervise it myself. I have little time, and supervising a bot at a different Wikipedia can be a lot of work.

Is there somebody at the Russian Wikipedia who knows some Perl? I can help that person install and run the bot. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Yes I found an inetrested person at Russian Wikipedia knowing the Perl. It is ru:Участник:Голем (ru:Участник:Mashiah Davidson) and he is interested [6]. Could you please get in contact with him to make sure the bot runs on Russian Wikipedia please? Thank you so much again in advance.--Rubikonchik (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a link at User WP 1.0 bot to the source code and to the instructions on how to use it. The best thing to do would be to follow that and see if there are any problems. If yes, I'll be glad to help. (I'll let Mashiah know on his talk page too.) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Are Reviews of Products' Qualities and Characteristics Acceptable as External Links?

Hi!

I am hoping you will kindly address this matter as I am confused.

I see that external links I added to reviews of Laphroaig, Buffalo Trace, and Johnnie Walker whiskeys were deleted (June 2) and warnings were issued that they were unacceptable. I do not understand why.

I have reviewed the Wiki rules and I do not see the problem.

The publication that produced the reviews of these products is an objective, independent publication that has no financial relationships to the producers of these whiskeys. The publication has been online 10 years and is widely read in the beverage professionals and enthusiasts.

Am I to understand that including in Wikipedia links to product assessments is unacceptable? If that is the case, then much editing must be done, as many entries (beverages, books, artists, etc.) include mentions assessments by reviewers or critics.

Thank you for your assistance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.147.142.212 (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you communicate with the user who warned you, at User talk:Quaeler. I do agree that this could have been viewed as you trying to promote that web site. But ultimately, again, talk to the user in question. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

help

Hi Oleg, i have a pdf file, a commutative diagram. how does one put that in an article? thanks. Mct mht (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not easy. First open that in Acrobat reader. Then "print to file" the page with diagram in question, that should create a PS file. Then, open that in some image editor (I use Gimp). Crop the desired region. Save as PNG. Upload to Wikipedia. If this does not work, let me know. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

that worked. much thanks. Mct mht (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but Image:Elliott's theorem.png is not of such good quality. Did you try setting a higher resolution in the graphics editor when importing from postscript? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

gave it another shot there. Mct mht (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

At full resolution it looks great, but as thumb it is still blurry. But I guess there's only that much you can do with a pdf. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Standing wave

Nice animation! Crowsnest (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Running the bot manually

I tried using http://www.kiwix.org/~oleg/wp/wp10/run_wp10.html to run the bot for "India (food)" project, it was erroring out. Can you please check? Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look in the weekend. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot suggestions/help needed.

Hey, it's me again.

• Suggestion:

I previously suggested to make every sub-section a linked entry so it would be easier to target articles of a specific importance/quality rating, and I'm suggesting it again. I'm currently working on the WikiProject Physics' Projects of the Week, and I've manually reviewed over 2,000 articles in the last week. I've reviewed all articles with an importance rating (and I'm now reviewing all articles according to quality rating. The problem is that I've already rated every article with an importance rating, so now I'm stuck re-reviewing a bunch of articles I've already rated/assessed.

I suggest implementing this feature for two reasons:

1. It'll help me a great deal.
2. It'll make it incredibly easier for people to assess the unassessed/unrated articles, and all wikiprojects will benefit from this.

• Help:

I've noticed that the Featured List were not part of the "assessment table". I tried to make WP 1.0 bot automatically handle it, but I've failed miserably so far. I also tried to make WP 1.0 bot add the "template" class and "category" class to the table, but I got nowhere. Could you help me with this?

These pages might be relevant.
Quality:
Category:FA-Class physics articles / Category talk:FA-Class physics articles
Category:FL-Class physics articles / Category talk:FL-Class physics articles
Category:GA-Class physics articles / Category talk:GA-Class physics articles
Category:A-Class physics articles / Category talk:A-Class physics articles
Category:B-Class physics articles / Category talk:B-Class physics articles
Category:Start-Class physics articles / Category talk:Start-Class physics articles
Category:Stub-Class physics articles / Category talk:Stub-Class physics articles
Category:Category-Class physics articles / Category talk:Category-Class physics articles
Category:Template-Class physics articles / Category talk:Template-Class physics articles
Category:Unassessed physics articles / Category talk:Unassessed physics articles

Importance:
Category:Top-importance physics articles / Category talk:Top-importance physics articles
Category:High-importance physics articles / Category talk:High-importance physics articles
Category:Mid-importance physics articles / Category talk:Mid-importance physics articles
Category:Low-importance physics articles / Category talk:Low-importance physics articles
Category:Unrated physics articles / Category talk:Unrated physics articles

Headbomb {^{— Write so you cannot be misunderstood.}
_{— ταλκ / Wikiproject Physics: Projects of the Week} 03:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the subsection feature request, I suggest you raise it at WT:1.0/I to see what people say.

Regarding Featured List class, the bot is supposed to support it, see WP:1.0/I. The reason Category:FL-Class physics articles does not appear in the table is because it has no articles, empty categories are skipped.

The bot does not support template class and category class, you'd need to ask at WT:1.0/I if you want these supported, to see what people say. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is there are featured lists within WikiProject Physics. See List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein and List of molecules in interstellar space. I'll head to WT:1.0/I for the rest. Headbomb {^{— Write so you cannot be misunderstood.}
_{— ταλκ / Wikiproject Physics: Projects of the Week} 15:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems the problem is with the physics banner. There was no provision for FLists or lists. I've proposed code but I can't upload it. May you can? Headbomb {^{— Write so you cannot be misunderstood.}
_{— ταλκ / Wikiproject Physics: Projects of the Week} 15:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Error while running bot manually

While running your bot manually via this link with Category:Professional wrestling, it needed to "fetch WikiProjects". It got an error once it got down to Wikipedia:WikiProject Reproductive medicine. The error messages says:

"Error message is: Could not get_text for Wikipedia:WikiProject Reproductive medicine! at ../modules/bin/perlwikipedia_utils.pl line 93 eval {...} called at ../modules/bin/perlwikipedia_utils.pl line 82 main::wikipedia_fetch('Perlwikipedia=HASH(0x86b4fa4)', 'Wikipedia:WikiProject Reproductive medicine.wiki', 200, 1) called at wp10_routines.pl line 1351 main::get_wikiproject('Category:Reproductive medicine articles by quality') called at wp10_routines.pl line 291 main::update_index('ARRAY(0x86b507c)', 'HASH(0x86b51e4)', 'HASH(0x86b51cc)', 'HASH(0x86b51b4)', 'HASH(0x86b5154)') called at wp10_routines.pl line 146 main::main_wp10_routine('Category:Professional wrestling articles by quality') called at /home/oleg/public_html/wp/wp10/run_wp10.cgi line 56 Fetching Wikipedia:WikiProject Reproductive medicine. Attempt: 2. Retrieving http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject%20Reproductive%20medicine&action=edit&oldid=§ion= Sleep 1"

I cannot take the bot any further than that as the error message keeps appearing. D.M.N. (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of this. I'll look at the problem this weekend. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This is fixed. There was an issue in the Perlwikipedia library I was using. Updating to the latest version took care of it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Loom91's edit war

A gentleman named Loom91 has removed the Introduction template at introduction to systolic geometry, twice. I am afraid I disagree and would like to chalenge his edit. What is the procedure for this? Katzmik (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I put the template back. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help. Katzmik (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Is his absence from Wiki from february until june, due to an earlier expulsion? Katzmik (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Error while running the WP 1.0 bot manually

While running this , I am getting this

Software error:

Can't locate bin/perlwikipedia_utils.pl in @INC (@INC contains: /public_html/cgi-bin/wp/modules ../modules /etc/perl /usr/local/lib/perl/5.8.8 /usr/local/share/perl/5.8.8 /usr/lib/perl5 /usr/share/perl5 /usr/lib/perl/5.8 /usr/share/perl/5.8 /usr/local/lib/site_perl /usr/local/lib/perl/5.8.4 /usr/local/share/perl/5.8.4 .) at wp10_routines.pl line 10.

For help, please send mail to the webmaster (emmanuel@engelhart.org), giving this error message and the time and date of the error.
Software error:

[Tue Jun 24 15:52:33 2008] run_wp10.cgi: Can't locate bin/perlwikipedia_utils.pl in @INC (@INC contains: /public_html/cgi-bin/wp/modules ../modules /etc/perl /usr/local/lib/perl/5.8.8 /usr/local/share/perl/5.8.8 /usr/lib/perl5 /usr/share/perl5 /usr/lib/perl/5.8 /usr/share/perl/5.8 /usr/local/lib/site_perl /usr/local/lib/perl/5.8.4 /usr/local/share/perl/5.8.4 .) at wp10_routines.pl line 10.
Compilation failed in require at /home/oleg/public_html/wp/wp10/run_wp10.cgi line 16.

For help, please send mail to the webmaster (emmanuel@engelhart.org), giving this error message and the time and date of the error. 

-- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 13:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Tinucherian: thanks for the report, I think I have fixed the problem for now.

Oleg: It looks like a lot of files disappeared from the 'modules' directory on the server. Based on the .bash_history file it looks like you were updating Perlwikipedia; I don't know if that's related. As a short-term fix, I moved the 'modules' directory to 'modules-o' and untarred a backup copy of the modules directory in its place. I don't think my newer code uses Perlwikipedia at all, so if the issue is a Perlwikipedia bug, that will be less important once the new and old code are merged. I am going to work on performing that merge this morning, but in a different location so that I don't impact the live code until the merge is finished. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I did something stupid when I tried to do svn update and some local files were staying in the way. I moved them up one level and then forgot to move them back at the end. Carl, thanks for fixing this fast. (I thought I tested the whole thing at the end, more than once, I can't understand how I did not catch this, oh well.) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see, I first updated Perlwikipedia, then I tested things, and everything worked, then I did some stupid cleanup which should not have affected anything but it did... Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The speed was just luck - I saw the message here and realized what it meant, so I went to fix it.

Regarding merging my changes into svn, would you prefer for me to clean up the files in the modules/bin directory that are no longer needed, or leave them there for historical purposes? I rewrote some of them, so that I can either move my new code into the old file, or just add my new file to svn. It's a matter of preference. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest you just add the new files to svn, along side the current (old) files. This is not an elegant solution, since some functions will be in two copies (old and new), but I use those files for my other bot (mathbot) too, and I'd rather have this not affect the other bot. Thanks for your work! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I added the files to svn today, but didn't yet combine the live versions so that the old version isn't on kiwix any more. I'm going to be traveling for a while starting tomorrow, and I don't want to risk breaking anything that I won't be around to fix. I'll do the combining when I get back from my trip. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to systolic geometry

Thanks for your comment. I added an introductory paragraph, let me know what you think. Katzmik (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics participation

You received this message because your were on the old list of WikiProject Physics participants.

On 2008-06-25, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date.

If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the current list of WikiProject Physics participants. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Series (mathematics), section Convergence tests

"Comparison test 2: If ∑bn is an absolutely convergent series such that |an+1 /an | ≤ C |bn+1 /bn | for some number C and for sufficiently large n , then ∑an converges absolutely as well"

You reverted my previous correction; i respectfully disagree.

The unconstrained factor C must not be there. To quickly see this, assume b to be the geometric series, \sum b_n, b_n = (1/2)^n, which is well known to converge absolutely to 2. Now choose some C>2 and infer from the stated "Comparison test 2" the convergence of the obviously (absolute) divergent series \sum a_n, a_n=1, as |a_{n+1}/a_n| = 1 < C*1/2.

147.155.88.127 (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right of course. For some reason I mixed up in my mind comparison test 2 with comparison test 1, where there is no ratio and there is a C. Thanks for pointing this out, I reverted my revert back to your version. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Addition of C-class

How do you add C-class to the assessment table for WP:FRAT? I have tried doing so, but your bot reverts me. miranda 22:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as the C-Class category is non empty, and placed as the other (FA, B, etc.) categories in the "by quality" category, it should be accepted. See if the above two assumptions hold. If not, let me know and I will take another look. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:C-Class Fraternities and Sororities articles is empty, so that's why. The bot does not list the empty categories, this kind of behavior was agreed upon a while ago. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a couple of articles to the category, and they are not showing up for some reason. Let me play around with it a bit, and I will come back here later to show my results. miranda 21:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It works now! Thanks. miranda 15:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge of finite element pages

I have posted a comment to at your request to Talk:Finite element method#The merge also see the spot I previously created for such discussion Talk:Finite element analysis#Merge discussion with Finite element method. -Art187 (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Bernstein blending function

Hi Oleg,

More than a year ago, Marvinklein burst briefly on our stage, contributing Bernstein blending function. I visited the article yesterday with an idea of cleaning it up — furnishing context, references, clearing out tags and checking the math. The more I got into it, however, the more it seemed to me that the article is a content fork of Bernstein polynomial; I've put somewhat organized (meaning,also, somewhat disorganized) notes here going into my reasoning, but my net feeling is there is nothing unique in this article; its content is a proper subset of Bernstein polynomials. I suspect the fork is innocent. The editor was new here and bought to the subject some atypical notation, so that it had the appearance of being different. I'm dropping a note here because you edited the article briefly, shortly after its inception, and left a thank you note on Marvin's talk page. So was MarvinKlein taking this article in some kind of interesting direction that you might be aware of, or was he inadvertently reproducing something that was already developed here? Could I be missing something here? Looking for a sanity check, that's all. If there is nothing unique about this article, then I think we ought to give it the heave — redundant, not as well developed as other articles, Appreciate it if you could visit it at some point and give me your opinion. Thanks! Take care. Gosgood (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My best guess is that Bernstein polynomial contains some theory, and Bernstein blending function contains an application, and none of the these two articles mentions the second one. I guess a good solution would be to keep them separate, as the latter is about an application, but to mention in Bernstein blending function that the functions used are actually Bernstein polynomials (if that's the case). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your observations. The way I see it, after translating notation, Marvin basically restates the definition section of Bernstein polynomials. He makes an ever so brief pass at the notion of a pyramid algorithm, which is unique to this article and which some researchers use to classify deCastlejau, deBoor, and other recursive kinds of algorithms. I do think I will clean it up, and ask further around. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Help request

Hi Oleg, can you, please, take a look here and tell me if you do not think that it's the most egregious abuse of wikipedia technical capabilities to slander another editor's whole history of contributions? I am not concerned with the substance of the "analysis" there (a mixture of banal and ridiculuosly biased claims, easily refutable, and even entertaining, in a dark way), merely his malicious intent. Thanks, Arcfrk (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I read that, and I also read this. Well, you two should cool down I think. I have not studied your interaction wtih Mathsci much, but from what I saw, my suggestions would be that: first, stop attacking each other, talk only mathematics. Second, when you have a disagreement at an article, discuss it on the talk page, and ask for outside input. I believe both of you are well-meaning but could use more patience and more constructive down-to-the-issue discussions when there are disagreements. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In general, it is not usually necessary to tell third parties what another user is doing wrong. If you do the right thing yourself and he/she does not, then the record of your actions and his/hers will speak for itself. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would not put it like that. Editing conflicts and personality clashes are rather usual on Wikipedia, and I've had my fair share (some of them quite recently). In those situations, seeking advice/mediation from a third party is actually the best thing to do, the alternatives are to leave the project in frustration, and that would be sad, we need qualified mathematicians who can watch over the ever growing list of math articles. My best advice is, again, try to get other editors involved when you have editing conflicts, that is the surest way to get to a consensus with least amount of stress. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but in this case, the two users are in a tattling war rather than just an edit war. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it! The conflict, in a nutshell, amounts to the fundamental difference in attitudes:

• I believe that Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project: I add content or improve exposition wherever I can, and try to keep articles open to further development;
• MathSci is very possesive and territorial: he reacts adversely to changes to articles that he created or significantly improved, by a combination of reverting them and personally attacking the "intruder".

His attacks take various forms: derogatory edit summaries, putdowns and innuendo on various talk pages. This had happened at Boundedly generated group, User_talk:Arcfrk/Archive2#Your_remarks, Talk:Surface and Differential geometry of surfaces, Talk:Orbifold, Kazhdan's property (T) leading to my April post at WPM talk page. Later statements by MathSci himself (at WPM and again, here) reinforce this impression: he clearly attaches top importance to having created or first edited an article, as if this were a sound reason to bar others from contributing or cheapened collaborative editing work on highly developed articles, he threatened to remove all his contributions from wikipedia, he keeps informing us about his future plans (to keep away potential editors?), pitches his high academic status, and stresses that his edits are based on his course notes. The last point, in particular, brings forth legitimate WP:OR and WP:OWN concerns (in "Boundedly generated group", he stated that some proofs included in the article are not in the literature and are the results of discussions with colleagues; in Orbifold, he claims to synthesize various existing definitions, Geometry Guy's reaction: "Unsourced mess"). Morever, in his last rant he went as far as to claim the whole areas of mathematics for himself (Ergodic theory), this is just utterly ridiculous!

You can see from our exchange on my talk page (linked above) that initially, I tried to look past his hostility and concentrate on the substance. But as you know, frustration builds up. I am very much against edit — tattling — whatever wars that detract from normal editing activities, but since the same thing happened virtually at every article that I edited after him, I don't see any good recourse. Quite to the contrary to JRSprigg's impression, I don't want to go to WPM or individual administrators and "tattle" each time this happens, so back in April I decided simply to stop editing and posted the "growl and pounce" message on my user page. I honestly think that the attitude based on the idea of ownership of articles is very damaging to Wikipedia, and combined with abrasive personality, it inevitably leads to those kinds of problems. Arcfrk (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I see. So, in the future, when you edit an article, and there is a disagreement, ask at WT:WPM for extra opinions. Otherwise, escalating back-and-forth arguments with the disagreeing editor without involving others can be unproductive from what I know. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You might also try contacting Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 19:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

To Headbomb: I hope you realize that WT:WPM is the same as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics ? JRSpriggs (talk) 04:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh, well now I do. Too many acronyms around.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 05:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

WP 2.0

I'm currently building something that I believe could be the basis of WP 2.0. Since you (and Carl) write code for WP 1.0 bot, I wanted to give you some heads up, and discuss a universal WP 2.0 "core" template for wikiprojects. What I have in mind is still very crude and won't be ready for a few months, but I'd rather start talking about it right now. Head to User talk:Headbomb/WP 2.0 tomorrow (or whenever the link is blue and not red) for the discussion. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 02:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I commented there. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot

Oleg,

I'm going to be working on the bot today and maybe Monday. First I have to debug a problem - I think the issue is that the MCB project has tagged so many stubs that the daily log page is too big to upload. Once the immediate problem is fixed, I want to switch everything on the server to the new code.

By the way, do you remember exactly what the reasons were to keep the history link to an oldid of each article in the WP 1.0 bot pages? I see this comment in the source:

# If the old_id of the current article exists on disk, it means that the current
# article is not truly new, it was in the list in the last few days and then
# it vanished for some reason (bot or server problems).
# So recover its hist_link and date from its old_id stored on disk
# assuming that its quality did not change in between.

Were there non-technical reasons to keep that link? I am thinking of the next version of the bot, and what data it needs to store per article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think User:Walkerma knows best about this. From what I remember, the idea was that if an article was bumped up, say from GA-Class to FA-Class, then at that moment its quality is high, so we should remember what revision was that (that's what the old id is). Later, when a printed version of the article is issued, the FA article in question may have degraded because of so much editing, then use the original version stored in the id. I always found this explanation weak (who has the time to revisit old versions), but this feature was requested so I put it in. The code would be much simpler without having to carry the old id around.

Ask the folks to see if they still believe having this id in is still useful. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That is pretty much trying to do the job that Flagged revisions is/was trying to do: Flag revisions of articles that were reviewed by someone. However, that was back then when there were bot runs every day, and the revision reviewed was in fact the oldid stored in the table. If my memory serves correctly, BozMo said that he found those useful while working on a release, but it would be advisable to ask him.

<wishlist>What is a recurring request is a full history of when articles were assessed/reassessed, similar to {{ArticleHistory}}, but for WikiProject assessments; however, I'm afraid that would require something more similar to a RDBMS back end than anything else...</wishlist> Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason I was curious about the revids is that the most current revid is linked from the list of articles but the previous rated revids are not kept in the logs. I was thinking about what logging data to keep for the new version. I agree it would be much simpler to just keep the records of when the assessments changed.

The current code does make logs of when assessments changed, it's just that the logs are difficult to search (old information is only in the page history). The "second generation" code will almost certainly have to use a database for storing data, which will also make it possible to generate history lists dynamically. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I created a page at User:WP 1.0 bot/Second generation to start thinking about an updated version of the bot code. Oleg and Titoxd, please feel free to edit that or comment on the talk page. I plan to make a widening series of announcements over time to get more feedback on the page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Mathbot doing WP1.0 work

I have proof! Mathbot still loves to do that sort of work, so it sneaks out sometime to do tasks at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Generate categories before WP 1.0 bot can see them... :) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I fixed that, indeed, mathbot should have no hand in WP 1.0 bot's business. :) Thanks for the note. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Erroneous retrievals by Mathbot

In some recent RfAs (the latest being shown here) Mathbot is making the mistake of prefixing 'www.' to the kate's tool for the editcount. I am aware this is becoming quite common since I've tried to fix this on two occasions prior to this. Regards, Rudget (logs) 13:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I fixed that. Thanks for pointing this out! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the swift response. Rudget (logs) 09:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary counter

The Template:User ESU uses a defunct, probably your edit summary counter (judging from the username ~aoleg). I was thinking to implement the Mathbot's counter, but it doesn't operate by appending something of the like of "?username=ExampleUser&wiki=en". Could you enable it as an option at least or resurrect the old counter so that the template can work properly? Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for taking that long to respond, I've not been that active on Wikipedia lately. That link was dead indeed, since I changed jobs and my old account expired. I fixed the ESU template to point to the new link. Thanks for your note! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Tables

Dear Oleg

I need your help. I would like to make a good table for Submarine Squadrons. Please see my user page all the way at the bottom, that is what I would like them to look like. Of course I would the Header Text Larger and centered. I have tried numerous times but I can't seem to get it right. Take a look at the Table on the page Submarine Squadron 11, I don't like the way it looks, I want it to look like the Table at the bottom of my user page. Can you help me with this? PLEEEEEEEEASE!--Subman758 (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I must say all I know about making tables is <tr><td>, so you must be vastly more knowledgeable than me on this matter. By the way, the table at Submarine Squadron 11 looks OK to me. If you want larger text you could try <center><font size="+2"><b> </b></font></center>. This is about all I know about tables. Try to ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), some folks there may know more than me. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Mathbot

Hello - would you be interested in cloning Mathbot into Statbot to update and maintain list of statistics categories list of statistics articles (which for some reason doesn't exist) and list of statisticians? Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 05:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of mathbot, I wanted to point out this announcement on the demise of query.php. [7] — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

CBM, thanks, I'll deal with the query issue soon.

On the topic of cloning mathbot, the biggest challenge in maintaining such a bot is to monitor it regularly by a person who knows the subject matter in question. I am not familiar enough with statistics and have too little time to supervise such a statbot. I'll be very happy to help anybody who'd want to set the bot up and run it. The source code is at http://code.google.com/p/mathbot/ (the see "source" tab and then "browse", then click on "trunk"). Running it will require some understanding of Perl and edits to adapt it to the stats page instead of math. Let me know if you are interested. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Unfortunately, perl could be Greek to me!!—G716 <^T·_C> 18:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yang-Mills equations

Hi, Oleg!

I have a question related to your page on Yang-Mills equations under dispersive Wiki.

You state that "There is a tentative conjecture that one in fact has illposedness in the energy class for the Lorentz gauge."

Do you know of any way to find out more about this conjecture? for example, a URL or reference which explains more about it? It doesn't worry me if it applies only to rough data (like initial conditions which are not smooth), but it has important implications if it is more general than that.

---

By the way, I tried to send this question just by hitting "email" on your page, but the system said I was not logged in, even though I was. I tried to satisfy its protocol but couldn't.

Thanks,

  Paul Werbos 

Pwerbos (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The only edit I made to the Yang-Mills equation page was a page rename. I know next to nothing about this equation, sorry. :) Try to visit that page and check out its history. One of the folks who wrote that stuff could answer your question. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you could not send email. I was able to send email to myself with no problems. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on WP 1.0 bot

WP 1.0 bot has made over 1 million edits since that username was created in February 2007. It has the third highest overall editcount (behind SmackBot and CydeBot) but has a higher average editing speed than either of those. That's an accomplishment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. :) Put a dumb bot into something close to an infinite loop and that's of course what you'll get.:) The fault lies with you mostly though, you removed even the 'sleep 1' thing I had, and you force the poor thing to edit as fast as the server allows it. Yes, one day well beat those two bots also. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC at St. Petersburg paradox

As you have contributed to an earlier related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (mathematics)#Punctuation of block-displayed formulae, you may be interested in Talk:St. Petersburg paradox#Request for comments: punctuation after displayed formula.  --Lambiam 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

New article

Hi Oleg, I have created an article called "Modes of convergence (annotated index)." I noticed you requested a more prosal style in the original modes of convergence article I created. I orgininally intended it as an index, however, which may not have been obvious. I thought I would give you a heads up in case you object to anything about it.Wikimorphism (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Refimprove Talk

Hi, I know I'm a little late, but just to let you know, I've replied to Template_talk:Refimprove#Place_in_the_reference_section.--Flash176 (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:WP 1.0 bot messing up.

Hi, according to the bots talk page, you are one of the operators. The bot has messed up here, while updating the category, San Jose Sharks task force articles by quality. If you could figure out what went wrong, that would be great. Thanks, LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 22:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It could have been a random hiccup. I ran the bot again for this project, and it seems the pages are now fixed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was an error in the {{ice hockey}} template. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Revert

Hi Oleg. You reverted a formula in Binomial coefficient for being not notable. Please note its use in Likelihood function#Example 2. "2, 3, 4, &c" means "two, three, four, et cetera". Cheers. Bo Jacoby (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC).

I see. I'd request that you follow established formal style in articles and avoiding things like &c. Also, the variable n must be italic. I guess you meant to say n≥2. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

surface transport

Hi,

I adjusted the section on Riemannian connections at differential geometry of surfaces to fit better with the case of surfaces. Please take a look. Katzmik (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. One suggestion. I think one should break lines within paragraphs, but rather let the text wrap around naturally. Cheers, 03:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List of statistics topics

Can you help me figure out why this list is soooooo long? Talk:List of statistics topics#E: Articles in List of statistics topics not in categories (I left this note at the bot's talk page as well) Thanks—G716 <^T·_C> 18:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

List of statisticians

I tried mathbot's list updater here: Talk:List of statisticians and got a couple of error messages that I archived here: User:G716/sandbox/mathbot. Could you tell me what I'm doing wrong. Thanks—G716 <^T·_C> 20:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look soon. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It works now. Maybe there was something wrong with the server. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! —G716 <^T·_C> 18:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations - a bit late

How time flies, I go away for a bit and come back to find you've given birth to a new baby bot — well I guess its a toddler by now — and I didn't even know you were pregnant, and it looks like Carl was the father, who knew? Hope its better house trained than that other bag of bolts: But I see just above that it's already leaving messes behind. By the way I'm free to play again. Paul August ☎ 21:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you've decided to resign from ArbCom. That will leave you to concentrate on things that are more fun, but the ArbCom would lose a fine and cool-headed head that way.

About the baby bot, the way things go Carl will be both its mom and its dad once he writes the code for the baby bot of the baby bot. I have too little time to track/maintain it recently, as in the real world there's a baby boy who needs me more than the baby bot. I'll keep an eye on mathbot though, the more grown-up sibling -- the bag of bolts guy. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

picture of Loewner

Hi,

Could you please type in the appropriate code for the photo at Charles Loewner before it gets deleted? I spent at least a quarter of an hour trying to figure out what they want but without success. Katzmik (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mikhail. I'm afraid we need some more information on the photo. Could you please answer the following questions, that I (or Oleg) will make sure that everything is done. You wrote source = family, author = Stanford; does that mean that somebody from Stanford made the picture, that it eventually came into the possession to a member of the Loewner family, and that this family member scanned the photo and give it to you? If not, exactly where did you get the photo from? The next bit is the permission. Ideally, we would like the copyright holder (which is probably Stanford) to release the photo under either the GNU Free Documentation Licence or the CC-by-sa license or both; did this happen? If yes, do you have evidence (in the form of an email, perhaps). If not, we have to follow the Wikipedia:Non-free content guideline which is a bit of work but we'll manage.

There is no hurry; even if the picture gets deleted, Oleg and I can get it back. If you prefer to discuss these issues over email free feel to send me one. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

What Jitse says. We need to make sure the photo is under GFDL or other acceptable license for Wikipedia, otherwise it will get deleted. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your interest. Loewner's daughter made the physical photograph available to me when I was writing a biography of Loewner. The picture itself seems to say something about stanford on the back. Hope this is enough information. Katzmik (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Ask his daughter who made the photograph and talk to that person. He/she must either place the photograph in the public domain or grant one of the types of licenses allowed by Wikipedia, such as WP:GFDL. Basically, he/she must allow anyone who uses Wikipedia to copy or make derivative works from the image with such derivatives also being allowed to be copied or derived and so forth. Plus you must provide full documentation that such permission has been granted, so that other people can verify that the permission has been granted (not just rely on your word). Sorry that it is so difficult. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that getting an email stating the permission from the photographer and pasting that email at Image:Loewner63.jpg in the appropriate place should be enough. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If anyone has the patience it would be better to track down Varian Associates in Palo Alto and ask them for permission to use the photo. Katzmik (talk) 09:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Advertising Personal Business

• Why is User:Kopf1988 allowed to advertise or link his personal business on wikipedia? He also was doing his personal running for mayor and supporting for a president. Is this allowed? Ucla90024 (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

To Ucla90024: Where is he doing this? If he is merely linking to his personal sites or his candidate's site from his user page, then I think he is within his rights. If he is adding biased (WP:NPOV) material, including advertisements (WP:COI), to articles or talk pages, then you should give the specifics (links to the edits) to an administrator. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I used to work at UCLA and live at zip code 90024. Heh. :) Per JRSpriggs, I think putting that kind of info on his user page is not forbidden I think. The policy is I think at Wikipedia:User page.

Edits to articles are of course a totally different matter. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

…From {integer] talk page of article

Great to see your establishing. I am not very experienced in wikipedia's administrating cultures though through time I'll get better. I was reviewing article integer after my original search of Faction (Literature). I was in search of Faction and just withdrew and searched it with ( literature ) here I found integer. The Article did start (with in old times) perhaps an administrative degree. I am interested in the DeLancey Faction. My acknowledgment of Colonial America is of some degree. After I went from said Article I went to Allegations and then Term, the Term Article was based on Tort. Then I went to Supreme Court directly from the connecting searches, though tort was of course withdrawn. Only in search now of Faction (literature) and the next connection of Allegations back click would lead to from Supreme Court.

I will incourse measure my talents as informitive and need to continue in any explanation. All respects to you for your uniqueness is captured, and the direction well to be for you in greatness.

The venture of this was to search a belonging of enteger with the human forces of thought. Needing to see an Article in that course would be very influencial. Study continues. David George DeLancey (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)I'll adjust this as I go along. I was stuck on the colonial years in which may have involved the terms integer and faction. Both may have had some connection with schooling and or the college performance and of course the forming of government. See what I'm interested in is when one achieves something and is persued by an enemy does the learning abilities and its construction become omitted. I realize we have some documents to actually help us carry on, though who actually has the ability to correspond. Or is it just an offensive roll, and by some form of dictatorship allows one to be in compliance. Only the priviledge can establish war and in some effort still form a government. I will continue to clarify through due time. The interest here is the colonial era. I feel that war was a misunderstanding. Again if you have an army and challenging another who's to say who's right or who's wrong. All I know is fighting started before legislature was committed perhaps another time around, though it was still established. Here's a good one the DeLancey faction corresponding with the Sons of Liberty. The Sons of Liberty call on the faction to establish some sort of correspondence. That started the Declaration of Dependence from here it goes up the course to the administrations and the 1st and 2nd congresses. If history is correct right about here is when the DeLancey faction separated from the Sons of Liberty in the non-corespondence of the Non-Importation Act by the Sons-Of-Liberty. Could this posibly be No Taxation without Representation. What we have here are basic rights witheld from a body administered 'in reconciliation. So now by right certain rights are enabled as correspondent to some people and thus priviledged to be ascerted to and by another; leaving fundamental rights obliviated. This again may have started before the Declaration Of Independence was secured and the acknowledgement of those rights. Acknowledgement may be pertaining to the situations of War. I guess thats it.David George DeLancey (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)...sorry about that now it spelled right Integer not Enteger.David George DeLancey (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what this is about. Can you clarify please? Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2008

(UTC)

Hmmm.. Interesting.--CSTAR (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This user's edits appear to all be incoherent nonsense. I would regard that as a form of vandalism and block him, if I were you. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think it is a hidden message to someone (see my boldfacing above). Nowadays it is cheaper to place a message at wiki than to place an ad in a newspaper. This sort of spam should be deleted as soon as it is detected. Katzmik (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

P. M. Pu

Hi, Please close the AfD when you get a chance. Katzmik (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A general suggestion — when an article you care about is being attacked by the exclusionists, you should make a copy of it on your own computer. Then if it is eliminated before you have a chance to finish fixing it up, at least you have not lost all the work you already did on it. JRSpriggs (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Gauss–Newton algorithm

I found R very useful. I would appreciate if you could improve the readability, but its nice to have a working computer example as a basis for coding. Please don't remove, but feel free to improve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.64 (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a put-here-everything kind of thing. That code adds nothing at all really, it is not even a properly written algorithm, but more a "how I can reword this article from plain English and math to using R". You're very welcome to do that kind of exercise on the side, but it adds nothing to the article. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

hi

hi oleg. I am interested in non-linear differential equations. Is there a thread on this anywhere?

Bruce rout (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We do not have threads for general discussion of topics. However, talk pages dedicated to improving an article or group of articles do exist. You might want to look at Talk:Nonlinear system. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Square root of sum of squares?

Hi Oleg,

I am trying to implement Gauss Newton, based on the Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%E2%80%93Newton_algorithm

and I thought that I should at least make sure that I can do the example. I used an Excel spread sheet to duplicate the algorithm given in the article. (It is amazing how poor the Excel math routines are!) In the example section, near the bottom, it says:

"The sum of squares of residuals decreased from the initial value of 1.202 to 0.0886 after the fifth iteration."

When I calculate the initial value for "sum of squares of residuals", I get 1.445497... I have to take the "square root" of that value to get the same number as stated in the article. (Then I get 1.202288.)

Is the article wrong, or am I wrong?

Thanks,

Mike --68.148.148.75 (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right, in the code used to generate those numbers I was plotting the norm of the residual, so there was an extra square root. I fixed that now. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 08:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Mathbot missing?

I was trying to manually update the list of old open AfDs, and got an error stating that "The requested URL /~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/afd/afd.cgi was not found on this server." Did something happen to Mathbot? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Now it works. I guess the server was down. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Typoes in Mathbot's edit summaries

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, Mathbot says "There are 0 open discusions in 1 days". The word "discusion" should be "discussion" with the extra "s", and it should probably say "1 day" instead of "1 days". Graham87 16:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I modified the text to say

"There are 0 open discusion(s) in 1 day(s)"

Not perfect, but that's just a bot report page, could be good enough. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely forgot about this until I checked the what links here page for my username. Can you also fix the spelling error in the edit summary? "Discusions" should be "discussions", with two s's between the "u" and "i". The grammar is good enough now. Graham87 10:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I should have read your message more carefully. I fixed the typo too. Thanks for noticing. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Gandalf's antics

Hi Oleg, user Gandalf found it fit to recommend my new article Ghosts of departed quantities for incorporation on the day it was created, and is now giving me a hard time at Uniform continuity based on a mathematical error. Could you please comment? Katzmik (talk) 10:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I see a pretty lively discussion at Talk:Uniform continuity. I hope it goes well. Usually, if you want input from other editors, you can try asking at WT:WPM. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice exponential function graph!

Hi. Excellent work with Image:Exp_series.gif! I feel it truly adds to the Taylor series article as it makes it much easier to understand. Keep up the good work! Greetings from Athens, Greece. --dionyziz (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC).

You're welcome. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles

Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ? User: Shotwell suggested (on my talk page) "I would endorse a WP:EXPERTADVICE page that outlined the wikipedia policies and goals for researchers in a way that enticed them to edit here in an appropriate fashion. Perhaps a well-maintained list of expert editors with institutional affiliation would facilitate this sort of highly informal review process. I don't think anyone would object to a well-maintained list of highly-qualified researchers with institutional affiliation (but then again, everyone seems to object to something)." We could start with that if you would agree ... - could you help to push his idea through Wikipedia bureaucracy ? Cheers, Apovolot (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom Elections 2008

Good afternoon, Oleg. It's a slow day for me today, so I'm running through my checklist of Arbcom Election items for next month's voting. I know Mathbot has updated voting data for the last three elections, and I wanted to check and see if you planned to run it again this time around. If that's the case, is there any assistance I can provide in formatting vote pages / setting up templates / etc? Thanks in advance, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to run the bot again. I hope the format is the same as last year, if not please let me know and I'll tweak the bot.

I am not that frequently on Wikipedia lately, so I'd appreciate a reminder say a day before the elections to get the bot set up. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Great! I've set up a sample voting page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Example, so you can double check the format there. It should match last year's fairly closely. The candidate statements page, where each statement is transcluded, should also end up being the same. Thanks again, I really appreciate the help! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You had asked for a reminder before voting opens - so Ping! The only changes to the voting page are two parserfunctions that add warning boxes before and after voting, to prevent early and late votes - everything else should match last year. Thanks again! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot

I ran into a problem with the bot today. On the lists of articles, it was transcluding the comments subpages. If one of those pages trips the spam filter (because of a link that has been added to the filter after the comments were edited) then the bot is unable to save the list page. It would retry over and over and then die. I made the bot no longer transclude the comments as a workaround. I discussed the problem with some mediawiki devs on IRC and they don't have any better solution. Just keeping you up to date, — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Manual of Style (mathematics)

I have nominated Manual of Style (mathematics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 04:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Linear least squares

I've replaced Image:Linear least squares2.png with one that had normally distributed errors instead of uniformly distributed ones. The fact that they were uniformly distributed just glared at you at looked ridiculous.

But there are problems with the size of the image. Is there a quick easy way to fix that? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

... and now I see that it looks OK on your talk page, but not in the linear least squares article. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: Here's the adapted code:

---

% Illustration of linear least squares.
function main()
 
   % KSmrq's colors
   red    = [0.867 0.06 0.14];
   blue   = [0, 129, 205]/256;
   green  = [0, 200,  70]/256;
   yellow = [254, 194,   0]/256;
   white = 0.99*[1, 1, 1];
   gray = 0.1*white;
 
% Set up the grid and other parameters
   N = 100;
   A = -2.2; B = 2; 
   X = linspace(A, B, N);
   C=-4; D = 4;
 
   % Set up the figure
   lw = 5; % linewidth
   lw2 = lw/2;
   fs = 22; % font size
   figure(1); clf; hold on;
   set(gca, 'fontsize', fs);
   set(gca, 'linewidth', lw2)
   hold on; grid on;
 
   % random numbers
   s=0.16;
   a = 1.2; b = 3; c = 1;
   p = 1; q = 6.5; r = 1.3;
   M = 50;
   p = s*p; q = s*q; r = s*r;
   XX=linspace(A, B, M+1);
   YY = p+q*XX+r*XX.^2;
   
   Xr = 0*(1:M);
   Yr = Xr;
   for i=1:M
      rd=rand(1);
      Xr(i) = XX(i)*rd+XX(i+1)*(1-rd);
      Yr(i) = p+q*Xr(i)+r*Xr(i)^2 + erfinv(2*rand(1) - 1)
   end
 
   myrad = 0.05;
   for i=1:length(Xr)
      ball(Xr(i), Yr(i), myrad, red);
   end

   axis equal;

 
   % least squares fitting
   Yr = Yr';
   Xr=Xr';
   Mat = [(0*Xr+1) Xr Xr.^2];
   V=Mat'*Yr;
   V=(Mat'*Mat)\V;
   pe = V(1); qe = V(2); re=V(3);
   
   plot(X, pe+qe*X+re*X.^2, 'b', 'linewidth', lw);
 
   grid on;
   set(gca, 'GridLineStyle', '-', 'xcolor', gray);
   set(gca, 'GridLineStyle', '-', 'ycolor', gray);
   set(gca, 'XTick', [-2 -1 0 1 2]);
   plot([-2 2], [3.5 3.5], 'linewidth', lw2, 'color', gray);
 
   axis equal;
   axis([-2, 2, -1.5, 3.5]);
 
   saveas(gcf, 'Linear_least_squares2.eps', 'psc2'); % save as eps
   %plot2svg('Linear_least_squares.svg'); % save as svg
 
 
function ball(x, y, r, color)
   Theta=0:0.1:2*pi;
   X=r*cos(Theta)+x;
   Y=r*sin(Theta)+y;
   H=fill(X, Y, color);
   set(H, 'EdgeColor', 'none')

---

Hi Michael. You'll need to convert the eps to png with more care, to make sure the picture is not pixelated. I removed your picture for now as it is not pretty (sorry). I'll try to fix it when I find time while following your request for normally distributed points. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

PS Please upload things to common rather than here, as now Image:Linear least squares2.png is both there and here and with two versions. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Continued towards the bottom. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

List of probability topics

Hi Oleg,

Less than two years after your initial greeting :) I have a question. A lot of articles are listed on Talk:List of probability topics#A: Articles missing from the List of probability topics. Do they just wait for anyone to insert them all to List of probability topics? (I could try.) Or should it be made selectively? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 09:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Boris. My robot put them on the talk page, as suggestions for editors. You are of course very welcome to add to the list the articles which look appropriate. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Strangely, Large deviations theory did not appear in any one of the two lists. I add it anyway. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was on the talk page (search for it). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, you are right. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I got puzzled: why such pages as List of integration and measure theory topics, List of geometry topics etc are not served by your robot similarly to List of probability topics? Any comments please? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That can be easily fixed. Take the line:

[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/lists/lists.pl.cgi?Talk:List_of_probability_topics Refresh the above lists]

Paste it on the talk page of the desired list, at the top. Rename there Talk:List_of_probability_topics with the appropriate name for that list. And click on the link. The bot will hopefully create an initial project on that talk page. Follow the instructions and fill in the categories in the appropriate section. Again click on the link. The bot will most likely start suggesting articles.

It was not used in other pages because there need to be willing editors. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the robot works! Very nice. A lot of thanks. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: synergetics coordinates

I forgot if I succeeded to explain these for you, and weeks or months ago the article was marked 'needs expert attention' (maybe because I removed 'expert' from my user page that already says I major in mathematics/algorithmics.) This was my new explanation:

Three axes are 3 dimensions, but synergetics axes are rays (only having '0' or positives) thus defining less than 3-dimensional Euclidean space. Three rays separated by 120° are R⁺∪0 and allow 'triangular' coordinates (ordered triples with elements '0' or positive.) They define Cartesian 2-space: any triangle (2-d simplex) or non-degenerate polygon can. Wolfram's Mathworld defines coordinate systems that use simplices as 'synergetics.' Equilateral triangle graph paper is a 2-d one.

---

Do you know any other geometry or undergraduate level math articles needing work?--Dchmelik (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Synergetics coordinates is as confusing as it ever was. About pages needing work, you can try taking a look at Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I made a picture for the article: it should be clear now (the picture description just has the simplest explanation in the article, though it does not give info to start using them.)

The picture clarifies things somewhat. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Only somewhat? The pixels the vertices are on are all equal length apart... I guess that and the picture's name are not in the article yet, but studying the picture and putting an origin on any point shows what the coordinates are.

Proposed changes to Template:RfA

See Template_talk:RfA#Add_.22nomination.22_heading_to_the_top. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This change is awaiting your "go ahead/hold off" before being made. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I replied there. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Mahalanobis distance

Dear User.

You contributed to the Mahalanobis distance article. Some of its content lacks citations for verification, has been challenged and may be removed. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references.Calimo (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

WP 1,0bot webform is removed ?

This webform is unavailable -- Tinu Cherian - 15:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The server this runs on will be discontinued, apparently. After a few days apparently this will go to a new server. I hope Carl is keeping track of this. If the bot is still broken in a few days I'll take a look. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the reply -- Tinu Cherian - 03:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The bot is running on the new machine, but the web server is not configured correctly to set up the web form. Hopefully soon. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Is a new webform available now ? -- Tinu Cherian - 05:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Any update ? -- Tinu Cherian - 03:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot about this. The new web form address is http://wp1en.kiwix.org/cgi-bin/wp/wp10/run_wp10.html Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow ! Thanks ...Sorry for nagging for this ...one of my bot tasks requires the unassessed categories should be clean . -- Tinu Cherian - 09:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Heat equation illustration

Hi Oleg, is the following description of the image at the right factually correct? What does the decline of the height at certain points codify? Just to be sure... Thanks, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The heat equation describes the dissipation of physical properties over time, such as the decline of the temperature of a hot body placed in a colder environment (yellow depicts hotter regions than red).

Well, the decline in height means the body is getting colder. That is to be expected from a hot blob put into a big pool of cold water. Note that the body here is 2D, the third dimension, the height, is the temperature. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, so what are the colors then? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The same thing. Any problem with that? :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

All right. Never mind. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wannabekate in RfA talk pages

You may want to have a look at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Edit counters and Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Possible problem with Interiot edit counts which discuss how Wannabekate is now an inaccurate editcounter due to the Image: -> File: namespace change. Because Mathbot uses Wannabekate, I though I should give you the heads up and suggest rectifying this problem. Happy editing! Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 03:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I commented there. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

2006 Rose Bowl logo

• Please correct the logo to show that the Trojans were the home team (should be on the right side), wearing the dark jerseys. I tried to upload the correct image, didn't work, only shown correctly in thumbnail. File:2006 BCS championship game logo.jpg Thanks. Ucla90024 (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• Looks o.k. now. With Chrome, it doesn't automatically update the photo. Ucla90024 (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Is Log(x) analytic?

Hi Oleg,

I was wondering if Log(x) is an analytic function. I wrote my question on the discussion page for Analytic_function but I'll copy and paste here in case it's hard to find:

I was reading this article on Analytic Functions and I noticed that in the Examples section, the logarithm function was given as an example of an analytic function. Let's consider $f(x)=Log(x)$ on the set of real numbers R. Now pick $x_{0}=0$. Then we can't find a power series representation of Log(x). Can we? So is the logarithm function not analytic then?

Siyavash2 (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

By this standard, the reciprocal function 1/x won't be analytic either. A power series representation certainly cannot exist at a point where the function is undefined. Log is analytic because it is the integral of 1/x which is analytic. Katzmik (talk) 14:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

To add to this, an analytic function need not be defined everywhere. The log is analytic wherever it is defined. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed in the article it mentions log is "analytic on any open set of its domain" where as I am discussing the set of real numbers R which contains zero and zero is not in the domain of log. Thanks for the clarification on this issue. Siyavash2 (talk) 01:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Image for nomination.

Just wanted you to know that your image Snells law wavefronts.gif Has been nominated for Featured Picture. Happy new year! —Clarknova (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd like to note that it is not quite an original idea (although it is my own work), it is inspired by this, whether that matters or not. Also, I personally like more this one. But I am not the one doing the nominations. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 08:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's original, just that it's well executed. I nominated that image for its technical simplicity, and its educational value. The interference gif is also very good, but doesn't illustrate a relationship between two phenomena the way wavefront gif does. —Clarknova (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Progress?

Hello. Those bot issues are still issues (since December 23rd). Any updates on that? Amazing how the world's mathematics hangs by this particular thread [OK, there might just be an element of hyperbole in this sentence]. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. I did not hear from those folks maintaining the bot server yet. I sent them another reminder. I hope I'll hear from them soon. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It sounds as if you don't use the "current activity" page every day. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually hardly track it as recently I am on Wikipedia rather sporadically since I have less time than before. Thanks for keeping up with the new additions to the math lists. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the mathbot resurrection! He appears to have awoken with some memory loss on Changes to mathlist. It'd be cool to see just the new pages since Dec 23, but I am just glad to have him back at all. JackSchmidt (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I ran it from my laptop (those folks at the toolsever are still in holiday mood apparently). Jitse's current activity page will show the new updates when it runs next time. The reason for the "memory loss" is due to the fact that I did not have a copy of the previous run on my laptop to compare against. It will come back to normal from tomorrow. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Another bot needed?

Hi Oleg,

If you like the Catalog_of_articles_in_probability_theory page then maybe you'll help me with a bot. The page is generated by a program, as you surely guess, from a source file that looks as follows:

(a,b,0) class of distributions spd (1:D)
Abstract Wiener space Gau
Adapted process (U:G)
 ...
Wishart distribution spd (F:C)
Zeta distribution spd (1:D)
Zipf's law spd (1:D)

The program, written by me in Python, works on my computer. Without it, other editors can make only small changes to that page. It would be nicer to put the source file into Wikipedia (which I am able to do myself) and provide a special bot that processes it (which I cannot do myself). What do you think? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

First, the catalog above is indeed bot generated, and I am not sure it would make an encyclopedic article.

Second, as far as I understand, you want other people to be able to use your program, the way the bot at talk:List of probability topics works. If that's the case, you need to put it on a web server. Since you work for a university, you can probably set it up in your web page directory. I can help you with that.

Please confirm that this is your intention. The more immediate question is whether we want such a list. You can get some feedback at WT:WPM. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

An encyclopedic article? Just a more organized version of the List of probability topics. I recall, someone wrote on some discussion page that it would be nice to have each list in two forms, one sorted alphabetically, the other - systematically. Really, I only want to continue the line of work started by you: a bot plus a man (maybe, plus another bot).

On our university server? OK, if this is the right way to do it (it seems to me, it would be better on some wikipedia-related server). Yes, please help me with that. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me add that the catalog is not quite bot-generated, it is rather bot-assisted, like List of probability topics and unlike talk:List of probability topics. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You can use the Wikipedia toolserver, see here. Try applying for an account, sometimes they take a while to approve, if they approve at all.

In the meantime, your school could be a good temporary location (that's how I was doing things when I was at school, now I don't have a dedicated server anymore, save for the bot account on the toolserver).

You need to tell me more details about how the code should be run, and perhaps even show me the code. For now, I can say that you need to set up the main bot script as a cgi routine, the way http://toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/lists/lists.pl.cgi?Talk:List_of_probability_topics is done. Setting up a cgi routine is not that hard, especially if your bot does nothing fancy.

What is harder is to upload your content to Wikipedia automatically. You can try using the pywikipedia framework, since you program in python.

In short, here are a few things to think about:

• How you want the thing to be run?
• See what you can learn about cgi programming (if you want other users to run your bot from the internet)
• See if you need the bot to upload stuff to Wikipedia automatically, and in that case, see if you can learn about pywikipedia.

After these issues are clear, we'll see how to proceed. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice; thank you. About cgi script: no problem, our system people will help me as needed. About the code: of course I'll be glad to show it; how to do it? Just here? By email? Otherwise? It is 6 printed (A4) pages long. Nothing fancy. How to run? Yes, like your one; I see no reason why do it differently. Yes, to upload stuff to Wikipedia automatically. Now I'll look at pywikipedia. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You can just paste your code on some subpage of your user page, say User:Tsirel/Bot code. Once you learn how to use pywikipedia (there should be detailed documentation, and should be doable with some work), and once you are happy that the bot does what you want and it runs as you want, then we can focus on the last step, allowing others to use it, via the cgi script.

By the way, by allowing other folks to run your bot via a cgi script can have security concerns. It is almost as if you give the whole world the same privileges you have on the computer in question. So you need to be careful with writing to disk, what information the bot can read from disk, passwords, etc. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. For now, please look at the User:Tsirel/Bot code. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the code. From what I see (I did not read overly carefully), you may want to integrate those two routines (parse.py and format.py) into one executable; then you may want its output (the string "biglist") to be uploaded to wikipedia via a call to the appropriate pywikipedia function.

Also, the file "all.in" probably needs to come from somewhere, probably from the talk page of that list, so you'd need to fetch it with pywikipedia.

If the input to your code is what my bot outputs on the talk page, then from within your code you could make a call to my bot (the cgi script) which refreshes the talk page.

By the way, if you have questions about pywikipedia, you can ask Jitse Niesen, he used that framework extensively. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; I'll act further. No, a man (men, in the future) plays an essential role between your bot and my program. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I start trying pywikipedia, and for now I am quite careful: I only read from wikipedia a single page, whose name is hardwired in the program, and I do not try to write to wikipedia (nor to do anything else to it). However, the pywikipedia asks me threatingly, whether I am allowed to use the robot. I understand that a bot needs permission. However, may I write and debug it before applying for the permission? Not a cgi, of course; for now just a Python program on my PC. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess you can ignore it. :) Eventually you may need to apply at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Now I apply for approval, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/CataBotTsirel. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The bot is already approved for trial (7 days); I use it, see User talk:CataBotTsirel and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Catalog_of_articles_in_probability_theory_versus_List_of_probability_topics . Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. Let's hope your bot won't put many human editors out of work, the unemployment rate is already uncomfortably high. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Snells law wavefronts

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Snells_law_wavefronts.gif, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Wronkiew (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD script

Just a heads up that when I went to use http://toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/afd/afd.cgi I received the following error message: Can't locate bin/wikipedia_fetch_submit.pl in @INC (@INC contains: ../wp/modules /public_html/cgi-bin/wp/modules /etc/perl /usr/local/lib/perl/5.10.0 /usr/local/share/perl/5.10.0 /usr/lib/perl5 /usr/share/perl5 /usr/lib/perl/5.10 /usr/share/perl/5.10 /usr/local/lib/site_perl .) at ./afd.cgi line 9. Happy editing! Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 10:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that was some sloppy programming on my part. I fixed it now. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion without AfD?

"11:27, 14 January 2009 Jimfbleak (Talk | contribs) deleted "Ani-Monday" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion)"

Jimfbleak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) apparently deleted the page Ani-Monday arbitrarily. There never was any AfD to my knowledge. Please look into this. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ani-Monday — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That was about a year and a half ago. I began editing the article about a year ago, not knowing of the prior AfD. Should there not be a statute of limitations for these matters? If the article has existed at least a year since the last AfD without anyone complaining, does it not deserve another AfD rather than being summarily executed? JRSpriggs (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just the messenger here. It's more painful than it ought to be to start fresh after an AFD. If you were to find a list of sources for the article, that would weigh in your favor for recreating it. Things like mentions of the topic in TV Guide, newspapers, etc. I can put a copy of the article in your user space for you to work on, if you want. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to have it, at least to use it as a list of links to the specific articles on anime which has been shown on the Sci-Fi network. If you decide to give it to me, please put it at User:JRSpriggs/Ani-Monday. However, I think that it is unlikely that I will be able to find secondary sources to provide as references.

Responding to the criticisms in the AfD: (1) I do not see how the version I was working on can be considered as infringing copyright since it is just an editor-compiled list of anime series and movies shown late Monday night on the Sci-Fi network. (2) Notability is a matter of opinion. I think that it is important because I watch those programs and it is a nationally distributed TV network after all. (3) How can it violate fair use, if it does not violate copyright? (4) Yes, it is compiled from the primary source -- the Sci-Fi network itself. I do not just copy names from the TV guide, I only add them when I see the program. Thus it is vulnerable to the charge of OR. (5) It could be said to violate WP:NOT#GUIDE, but so could any list of related links and we have many such articles. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Riemann–Hilbert

This edit created the plural title Riemann–Hilbert problems while the singular Riemann–Hilbert problem redirected to something other than the plural. I've moved it to the singular. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Confused

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Indonesia_articles_by_quality/1 - I used to be able to click on one of the bot generators to get this moving. It hasnt been started by anything since the 15th of January - and I was wondering is there a link to something that works? I have removed earlier versions of bot starters from my user page - as they longer link to anything - hope you can help - cheers SatuSuro 14:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently today it got updated. Usually, if it is not updated in a while you can visit Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot and see the link there to how to run the bot by hand. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and info - cheers SatuSuro 06:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussions link

Sorry for removing the archive link on /Old (I did it three times by accident :S), in future please feel free to tell me when I cock things up like that, esp. when I do them multiple times. :) — neuro^(talk) 03:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Trees (structure)

I see that articles tagged Category:Trees (structure) do not get added to the list of mathematics articles. Did you decide to exclude it, or has it never come to your attention? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me that by doing this we'd be stretching our hand too far for the fruit that sits firmly in the computer science tree. Well, on the other hand surely science is a densely planted orchard with the math tree and computer science tree planted really close to each other so their branches are intermingling sometimes so that it is too hard to tell on occasion on whose branch a given fruit sits.

In short, isn't the tree category too much a computer science subject to be listed together with the math articles? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If it means "tree" in the sense of graph theory, then it belongs in math. Should (or do) we have another tree category for those? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

...Oh: we do: Category:Trees (graph theory). Michael Hardy (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

........but that's a subcategory. Do subcategories make the list in some cases where main categories don't? If not, the should in this case, both with Category:Trees (graph theory) and Category:Trees (set theory). Michael Hardy (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Trees (graph theory) and Category:Trees (set theory) are both subcategories of Category:Graph theory. Both are in the list of mathematics categories and so are searched by the bot. If there are any trees articles that you feel are mathematical, I guess they should be in one of the two above-mentioned categories and then the bot will list them. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Chicago and Illinois project stats

Neither the WP:CHICAGO nor WP:ILLINOIS stats have run this month.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Typo redirect Barlow's Formula

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Barlow's Formula, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Barlow's Formula is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Barlow's Formula, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've disputed the factual accuracy of your work

As far as I know we don't have a factual-accuracy-dispute template for images, so at linear regression, I've typed my own factual accuracy dispute notice into the caption of the picture at the beginning of the article. A while back you objected to my replacing your image with something that didn't look ridiculous and misleading—apparently it didn't satisfy some stylistic criterion you had in mind. Since you don't want me to do it, can you replace the picture with something reasonable-looking? The one there looks as if both the x-values and the errors are uniformly distributed. If you made the x- and y-values jointly normally distributed it at least wouldn't look childish. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That's silly. Yes, at the very basic level you are right, the standard assumption on the random noise perturbation assumes that it has a normal distribution. But you are reading too much into that picture, whose main point is that a line can fit a set of data, regardless of the data. That's just an example.

And I do prefer a good looking picture to something "more correct" but crappy looking. If you'd bother to do quality work, you can easily regenerate a picture of higher quality. If you're not willing to do that, I hope I'll get to it this weekend, I don't have Matlab installed on this machine. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, a few weeks back I attempted this and you didn't like the way I'd done it and reverted. I'm not all that adept at programming details, so your reversion of my attempt isn't all that encouraging. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

....You may also be missing some points:

• One would want the picture to make it plausible, when accompanied by appropriate explanation, that the line used to predict y from x would be different from that used to predict x from y. The picture that's there screams about straight lines with a slope equal to that of the upper and lower boundaries of the region in which the data points appear.
• As for "quality work", I've done more of that than all be a small number of Wikipedians, but NONE of it is in software.

Michael Hardy (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more prompt and more polite in answering your concerns. I replaced with figure at File:Linear least squares2.png with one with normal noise per your code earlier on this page.

You are welcome to tweak the picture at File:Linear least squares.svg in any way you wish (code is included) as long as you make sure the generated picture is of good quality (you need to open the .eps file generated by matlab in gimp -- type "gimp Picture_name.eps" in a Linux terminal -- when asked about the resolution choose something like 200, check the button saying "strong graphic antialising"; it is really quite straightforward). I could do this for you but I hope it would be useful learning experience for you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

various topics

Thanks for the welcome last year (I joined the welcome committee) and many articles that have helped: I award you E=mc² Barnstar (for mathematics or science.) I asked a question on Template_talk:Portals because portal instructions step 8 say to add a link to {{tl:main portals}} and then Portal:Browse. 'Part a' looks like a technical page: not somewhere to make a link, but I made a link on the (not very active) talk page and did part 'b.' Is that alright?--Dchmelik (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I re-edited Synergetics coordinates. I still sometimes have a hard time reading long math notation myself, but all that one needs is a picture of equilateral triangle graph paper; all the coordinates are in 2-d is the plane of unit equilateral triangles... that is not hard to understand. I asked someone for permission to use a picture but have not heard back yet.

Also, is there any way to archive part of my talk page (instead of deleting,) or does it just happen when it gets big?--Dchmelik (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

See Help:Archiving a talk page and User:MiszaBot. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the edit summary checker broken?

Hi there. I tried to check my edit summary usage and it tells me "Edit summary usage for SoWhy: 0% for major edits and 0% for minor edits. Based on the last 0 major and 0 minor edits in the article namespace." Could the script be broken? Regards SoWhy 17:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The reason was some change in the way the html generated by the server. I fixed the tool now. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Photo-tagging?

Hi: I've been going through and adding pictures to mathematician bio articles. It would help a lot if a bot could go through all mathematician articles and put a {{reqphoto}} tag on the ones that don't have any photos on them. Then I could use the lists over at Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics/Lists to identify pages instead of going through them manually. Is this possible? Thanks, Ray^Talk 23:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, just a list of mathematician bio articles without pictures would work :) Ray^Talk 23:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried to look at that. Apparently I am having problems logging in to the toolserver where the scripts and data are. So this will have to wait until the toolserver admins help me out. Hopefully it will get solved by next weekend. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks -- will await news next weekend or so Ray^Talk 22:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Here, User:Mathbot/Mathematicians missing photo. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

triple torus

I like your triple torus surface (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Triple_torus_illustration.png), is there somewhere I can read about how that was created? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.6.203.178 (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The source code is below the picture. Conceptually, it was obtained by putting three tori in a triangular pattern, and deforming the region where they meet so that there is a continuous transition from one to the other. The harder part was rendering the surface once there is a formula for it. Matlab's isosurface command was of great help. Don't know if that's enough details for you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I already understand the basic setup and the rendering in Matlab fairly well. What I'm curious about is exactly what you did to make the transition continuous. I came up with a way to render a smooth composition of multiple tori - I define a function f(x,y,z) that represents the inverse square of the distance between a circle and a point, then simply add N translated copies of this together, and plot an isosurface of that (as if its a constant potential surface generated by circular charge distributions). My results don't quite resemble yours, and I haven't yet taken the time to read through your code enough to understand it fully. I guess my question is, are you doing something similar, or totally different? Monguin61 (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I did something along the lines of what you say with File:Sphere with three handles.png. Instead of N functions I just had one function for each of the shapes (one for the sphere, and one for each of the torii). I took the maximum of these functions, blurred the resulting function a lot, and then found the isosurface.

For the triple torus I think I had an actual explicit formula for the function I took the isosurface of. Let me try to explain. Imagine three disks touching each other, like this:

   O O
    O

(above they should be touching, I could not make that in ASCII). Let Q be the geometrical center of this figure. Imagine a deformation T that maps every point close enough to Q onto Q (so T(x) = Q for x close to Q), and every point in a larger neighborhood is pulled closer to Q but not quite onto of Q (so T(x) = y with y being closer to Q than x was). Lastly, points sufficiently far from Q don't move at all under this deformation. This function has the effect of closing the gap between the circles and smoothing the transition from one circle to the others.

The same trick works with three torii. The code has the precise formula for the deformation T above, and when applied to three tori it gives their morphed version. I am not sure I can go into more detail without referring to the actual code. Cheers, 03:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No current activity?

Once again Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity show no new article for several days. Could it be that they're not getting added to the list of mathematics articles? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Mathbot is running just fine, per Special:Contributions/Mathbot. This time I think it is Jitse's bot which is not doing so well. Ask Jitse. Thanks for pointing this out. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Peridynamics

Can you take a look at the page on Peridynamics? I think it is serious POV-pushing. I small group of people (2-3) have created the page based on their own research, cite their own work in references, put links to it in other articles, and keep removing criticisms.

Thanks. Cj67 (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not a specialist in continuum mechanics, so I can't say much. I was surprised how carefully the article is written and the amount of citations. Not your average crank pov-pusher, that is. Try raising this at the math wikiproject, and see what the folks there may have to say. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Adjusting Mathbot for AfD

Hi Oleg. Following this discussion, AfD discussions now go for seven days rather than five. Would you be able to adjust MathBot to take this into account? Regards SilkTork *^YES! 16:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That will take a while, since I can't log in to the server running the bot for the time being due to some issues. Hopefully no longer than a week. I'll let you know when this is resolved. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Kandidat nauk

Hi Oleg, there seems to be consensus for move at Talk:Kandidat nauk to Candidate of Sciences, but it requires an administrator because of the existing redirect. Would you be interested? Thanks. Jmath666 (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Now, in Russian it was with lowercase, which would correspond to Candidate of sciences with lower-case "s", but I am not sure about that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Indeed, also per the article. Jmath666 (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Topical indexes

Hi. I was wondering if you could update Mathbot to change its output category, from Category:Topical indexes to Category:Indexes of articles (which it has been replaced by/renamed as). Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Let's see how this works in the next few days. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Diophantus II.VIII

Hello Oleg

Dates back a bit but did you ever resolve your query about the article on Diophantus II.VIII ?

I wrote this article because there is such a lot of 'spin' on Pythagorean triples.Diophantus provides a perfectly clear and comprehensive method of generating any of the infinity of such triples. All triples are rational multiples of the form which we may derive from presenting Diophantus' method in algebraic form - that is what I have done on this page.

What especially intrigues me is Fermat's note stating there are no rational solutions to a^n + b^n = c^n for n>2. He must have had at very least a substantive intuition to make this statement and since the conjecture was written next to Diophantus II.VII in Fermat's copy of Arithmetica, we must assume his intuition would have been drawn from same article.

Neil Parker (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I split the article into sections, to make it clearer what Diophantus's problem was, and then our take on it, meaning the generalization. I hope this introduces some clarity. You may of course modify things further as you see fit. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea to split the historical from a modern interpretation thereof.

Neil Parker (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot

FYI: WP 1.0 bot got stuck half way through WP:Germany today. Agathoclea (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Argh... poking CBM about this. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 10:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This says

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /cgi-bin/wp/wp10/run_wp10.html on this server.
Apache/2.2.8 (Ubuntu) PHP/5.2.4-2ubuntu5.6 with Suhosin-Patch Server at wp1en.kiwix.org Port 80

-- Tinu Cherian - 05:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Found the the new link Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 05:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Probability metric (presently Lukaszyk-Karmowski metric)

Dear Oleg, I write to you as you were the first with whom I discussed the article that I created in March 2007: Probability metric (presently Lukaszyk-Karmowski metric). As you see the article is now considered for deletion (after I was compelled to change its name to a narrower yet a bit unfortunate one as now it suggest that I am self-promoting myself. (Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Notability_issue_on_Lukaszyk-Karmowski_metric). It is like I was asking for your help, but it's not true. I shall accept the decision of the community though it is not based on any essential grounds (No one proved that the concept is wrong, alleged WP:NOR and WP:Notability. I simply appreciate if you browse the subject and take your position. It's like a put a needle in the ant's nest :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guswen (talk • contribs) 07:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I happen to agree that the article is not so notable. I think you should wait and see if the concept is being picked up in other publications before making an article on it. I do appreciate the amount of work you put into that article. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

To Guswen: I suggest that you save a copy of the source text of the article off-line (on your own computer), if you have not already done so. Thus, if and when it is deleted and you subsequently find justification for recreating it (i.e. it is mentioned in other publications and thus becomes notable), you can easily put it back into Wikipedia without duplicating most of your work. JRSpriggs (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimson timebomb

Mathbot doesn't seem to recognize that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimson timebomb has been closed, and it keeps adding it back to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old list. I can't see anything immediately apparent which would cause this. Can you see something? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I clicked on the link at WP:AFD/Old to refresh the list, and it did. I don't know what the issue was, maybe the bot was reading a cached version of the page? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate moving of article

JamesBWatson (talk · contribs) has unilaterally moved Newton's method to Newton–Raphson method. This is contrary to our policy of using the most common name in English. JRSpriggs (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Raise this at WT:WPM. Both names are widely used from what I know. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the article back: pleas see my comments at[[8]]. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot question

In this edit, the bot removed the additional sections I had added so WikiProject Japan could more easily keep track of tagged articles and other pages. Is there a way to have the bot not do this, and also update the sections I added? Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Implementing the feature you request won't be easy, and any such change will affect all the projects, not just the Japan one. Try raising this at WT:1.0/I, and let's also see what Carl, the current WP 1.0 bot maintainer, thinks about it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done so. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Oleg Alexandrov/Archive13's Day!

User:Oleg Alexandrov/Archive13 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Oleg Alexandrov/Archive13's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Oleg Alexandrov/Archive13! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll second that. Paul August ☎ 01:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Long, long overdue. If only we could give out months, instead of days. Oh, well. John Carter (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, after I resurrected Phaedriel's WP of the Day campaign, a few others took up the banner. One of them gives out week and month awards. See User:Midnight Comet/Wikipedian of the.... — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) I am not sure what I did to deserve this, being half-retired, but it feels good nevertheless. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot: Categories

Could you please include categories in the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Video game articles by quality statistics table? Thanks. SharkD (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the bot does not support categories. Try raising this at WT:1.0/I, and let's also see what Carl, the current WP 1.0 bot maintainer, thinks about it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Threefolds?

Is Category:Threefolds one of the categories whose articles show up automatically in the list of mathematics articles? (I think the list may have missed an article I just did some edits on.) Michael Hardy (talk) 05:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I just put it in. There is a big backlog of categories to be added at User:Mathbot/New math categories. One needs to decide for each category whether it is math or not. Then the bot will add it to the list of mathematics categories. I hope to get to it sometime. Any help in that respect is appreciated. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a name for this interative method of numerical integration?

Link to description of algorithm:

iterative_method.htm

Jeffareid (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I replied at Talk:Numerical integration. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the Day

Congratulations, Oleg Alexandrov! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, July 20, 2009! Keep up the great work!
Note: You could also receive the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!

Happy editing!

Midnight Comet 13:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As with the other "Day" notice a few sections above, I am not sure what luck has befallen on me lately. :) Perhaps these are suggestions that I should be doing some work for a change? :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, just belated acknowledgement of your earlier work, finally. There may be more to follow, by the way, I dunno. John Carter (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Andean Volcanic Belt

Hi Oleg - It's standard practice to multi-stub in that way. SouthAm-geo-stub is no longer used - it is on no articles whatsoever and redirects (or more precisely upmerges) to the base geography stubs category so that anything which does get marked with it can quickly be sorted using more appropriate stub types (the same is done with a couple of other deprecated stub templates). Yes, wikipedia is primarily for readers, but stub templates serve the other part of Wikipedia - editors - the part without which articles won't expand beyond stub level. Yes it looks ugly - that's half the point. The uglier it looks, the more likely it is that someone will actually expand it. And the most likely people to expand it are those working on articles about the geography of those countries, which is why that's the best place to categorise this article. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Move Diophantus II.VIII ?

Hi Oleg

Just wondering whether perhaps the best thing to do with Diophantus_II.VIII is to move it entirely to the page on Pythagorean triplets. Readership stats to not seem to support a standalone article whereas it is historically relevant to PTs because in essence Diophantus provides an early - if not the earliest - algorithm for generating rational triples. Your opinion would be appreciated.

Neil Parker (talk) 05:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Pythagorean triplets article seems to be big enough by itself. I would think it is better to leave Diophantus_II.VIII where it is, a historical article on a specific topic. But I am not a number theorist. Try asking at WT:WPM if you want more opinions. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the Week

Congratulations, Oleg Alexandrov! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Week" award for this week! Keep up the great work!
Note: You could also receive the top award, "Wikipedian of the Month" for this month!

Happy editing!

[midnight comet] [talk] 00:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The third one, in a short span of time. There's probably some inflation in the awards department, which is surprising given how much work it takes a silversmith to beat one of these shiny precious metal pieces, and then having to hammer it onto a user's talk page. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Afd top

Hi, I have modified {{afd top}} to allow discussions to be collapsed when transcluded in the log pages. Please see Template talk:Afd top#Proposal. (I am notifying you as requested in the documentation.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot blocking

Oleg, the bot is behaving rather badly on the AFOD project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Adoption,_fostering,_orphan_care_and_displacement_articles_by_quality_statistics

It has replaced the name of the project rather than the preferred abbreviation, causing the project page to look poor. I tried blocking the bot, but apparently that is only available to admins. Could you please block it from the AFOD project. Thanks.Tobit2 (talk) 05:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The bot works as designed. It does not know about abbreviations. If you want this extra feature try asking at WT:WP1.0/I, but I am not sure if there is manpower for implementing that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As Oleg says, the bot is functioning as designed. If you would like to manually update a table, you should choose an alternate pagename, perhaps a subpage of your Wikiproject, in the same way as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Social movement"

Any idea why social movement belongs in the list of mathematics articles? I've also noticed some other strange recent additions within the past week or so. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Category:Identity (within which it is indirectly included) is classified as a mathematics category? JRSpriggs (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure of the reason. The first thing to check if that article shows in a category listed at the list of mathematics categories. Then one should first remove the article from that category, so that the bot does not add it back, and then remove the article from the list of mathematics categories.

I used to supervise mathbot very closely, unfortunately I don't have that time anymore. If it becomes a problem that the bot adds odd articles it may need to be stopped or perhaps ran only on demand. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

After I posted this, it appeared that someone put the Category:Group actions tag on it. That's an ambiguous phrase. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Diophantus II.VIII and Plimpton 322

Hi Oleg

Could you please check out:

User:Neil_Parker/Sandbox/Plimpton#Diophantus_II.VIII_and_Plimpton_322

and let me know if you think it is ok to publish on the Plimpton 322 page.

Thanks.

Neil Parker (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, sounds too much like personal ruminations on something. I would argue that such text is not appropriate in Wikipedia. You can ask other folks as well, see WT:WPM. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello again

Thanks for having a look at my 'ruminations' which may however be checked for mathematical consistency.

Eg row 5 of Plimpton. Robson's reciprocal pairs are 2:15 and 26:40 sexagesimal respectively. Well 2:15 in decimal is 2.25 and as a fraction that is 9/4. Assuming reciprocal 26:40 sexagesimal is 26/60 + 40/60^2 or 4/9. There in the reciprocal fractions sit the very generating numbers 4 and 9 the existence of which her thesis denies. Is this something that needs to be pointed out or am I missing something ?? Robson's thesis can be read at: [9]

Neil Parker (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok - I've removed the 'ruminations'. Could I prevail on you to have another look and see if it now seems reasonable for posting? I think the key point of the submission is the similarity with Diophantus_II.VIII rather than the challenge to Robson's thesis - can leave that out altogether if needs be.

Neil Parker (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The text after "It is interesting ..." still appears to me to be original research and personal opinion, and such not belonging in the encyclopedia. Again, please feel free to ask for other opinions. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the mass links - can I get the codes back?

Hello - could you undelete these pages or help me get the codes back? I was in the middle of getting contributions from some other authors about the motivation and stories behind these books, and re-writing the material. I didn't realize mass linking would get me kicked.:

• Coastal and Estuarine Processes
• Handbook of Porphyrin Science
• Handbook of coastal and ocean engineering

Yhkhoo (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Mathbot inquiry

Hi. It appears that List of mathematics articles (A-C) and its associated series of three letter list pages that merely transclude the single-letter list pages are used exclusively for the operations of your bot. Since they rather pointlessly (for actual humans) duplicate the single-letter pages in article-space, is there any reason they couldn't be moved into either your bot's userspace or the Math WikiProject's project-space? --Cybercobra (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

These pages existed long before the bot. If you want to have a discussion on whether they are useful, please ask at WT:WPM. I am fine either way. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

A proposed move that may (or may not) affect your bot

Hello, Oleg Alexandrov. You have new messages at Talk:List of mathematics articles (A-C).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

link to disambig page

Hi Oleg, it looks like your bot won't allow the removal of the link to Convex from List of mathematics articles (C). Convex is a disambig page, and all the math-related links from the Convex dab are already listed in List of mathematics articles (C). Could you remove Convex from the bot's list please? Thanks, --JaGa^talk 11:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed convex from Category:Mathematical disambiguation. That should do it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

thankyouverramuch. --JaGa^talk 20:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Oleg,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Snells law wavefronts.gif is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 22, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-09-22. howcheng {chat} 04:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That was nice. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Mail

Hi Oleg. Did you get my recent email? Paul August ☎ 17:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was just now about to reply. While you were away I upgraded some packages to fix Wikipedia login issues. That and my carelessness broke the bot. I fixed that now. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much. Paul August ☎ 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

More mail

Hi Oleg. More mail ;-) Paul August ☎ 13:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

File:220px-UCLA Bruin.jpg

Oleg, I've tagged this image with {{non-free 3d art}}. Freedom of panorama does not exist in the United States for works of 3d art. Thus, the copyright holder of this work retains rights to derivative works, such as photographs. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I tried to put in a fair use rationale. Any clarification to it would be very welcome. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing Category:Markov models

Hi Oleg, I'm not entirely sure I agree with your removal of the 'Markov models' category from some of the pages you visited. Aren't you taking the category a little too literally? For example, you're 100% correct that Anders Krogh is not a Markov model, but he was one of the first researchers to apply HMMs to the field of biology. This was a hugely significant advance for the field, so surely visitors to the category page would want to see things like this. I know I would. Likewise, the softwares HMMER and Xrate make extensive use of Markov models and the database Pfam distributes thousands of HMMs for classifying protein sequences. So whilst I agree these pages aren't literally Markov models I do think they still have a place in that category. Just my 2p. --Paul (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we need a distinction between Markov models as mathematical tools on one hand, and people who work on them and software based on them. This is how things are usually happening with other categories.

Perhaps you can create something like Category:Markov models software. I am not sure what to do with the people. I still feel that you can't put people in the same category as their research area, for example, Gauss for example should not be put in Category:Geometry, Category:Arithmetic, etc. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A Category:Markov models in biology or Category:Applications of Markov models could work as well. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Oleg, You're right. I had a look around other categories to see if there was a precedent either way. They overwhelmingly came out in favour of very specific categorisation. You were right, I was wrong. My humblest apologies for wasting your time. ;-) --Paul (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no precedent in overly humble apologies either. :) :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments subpages (Village pump discussion)

I was following a discussion at one of the village pumps about the comments subpages used by some articles, and having a vague memory that WP:WP 1.0 started them, I went looking for the old discussions that started them and found these: 1, 2, 3 (May to July 2006). You were one of the five main participants at those discussions, so I'm notifying all five of you so that some input from when this all started can be obtained for the current discussion, as I'm not sure the full picture is being presented there so far. I'll leave a note at the Village Pump discussion saying who I notified. I also left a note at the WP:WP 1.0 talk page, but not sure how much you each follow that page now, hence the user talk page note. Carcharoth (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Oleg Alexandrov. You have new messages at Sligocki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Notice of a discussion which may concern you

Hello. You may want to comment on this discussion: Help talk:Edit summary#Requested move. -- œ^™ 06:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Westwood Village Memorial Park Cemetery view to southeast.jpg

File:Westwood Village Memorial Park Cemetery view to southeast.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Westwood Village Memorial Park Cemetery view to southeast.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Westwood Village Memorial Park Cemetery view to southeast.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Question...

why did you delete the article on sneeze fetishism? Coffeegalatea (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Bristol articles by quality statistics

Hi - firstly thank you for this bot. I do have a query regarding recent updates to the above. The bot is consistently showing one artcile as being un-assessed for importance, yet there are no unassessed articles in the Category:Unknown-importance Bristol articles? Jezhotwells (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not work with the WP 1.0 bot for a while, you can try asking at WT:1.0/I. I doubt though that there is any error in the bot itself, most likely something confuses it. I can only think of a brute force solution, visit all talk pages in Category:C-Class Bristol articles, and see if the number of articles of each importance is the same as what is shown in the table. That way you'll find the C-Class article of unknown importance. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dear Oleg Alexandrov,
Wishing you, your family, and friends a very merry Christmas (or whatever you celebrate at this time of year), and I hope that the new year will be a good one, in real life, and on the wiki. There is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit; it's a special time of year of almost everyone. ;)
Love and best wishes, Meaghan - ^Merry _Christmas! - 00:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I wish the same to you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Poincaré–Steklov operator

Hi Oleg can you take care of the move of Talk:Poincaré–Steklov operator/Temp (if appropriate) please? Thanks! Jmath666 (talk) 03:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

List of mathematical articles

Hi.. while I was assessing unassessed math articles, I noticed that several articles from Category:computational complexity theory are missing from the list of mathematical articles. I think this would be because the category does not appear in "Mathematics categories" in list of mathematics categories, and I guess the list of mathematical articles is populated by articles which appear in that category. Is my understanding of the bot correct? How would I go about adding Category:computational complexity theory to the list of mathematical categories so that the articles appear in list of math articles? --Robin (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. I am not sure however if the entirety of articles in Category:computational complexity theory can be considered mathematics. I am not an expert, but as I see it, that is more about computer science. If you want, you can start a discussion at WT:WPM to see what other folks believe. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I've started a discussion on WPM to see what others think about this. --Robin (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Last warning?

What this warning is about? Maxal (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That was not me. Some anon from what I see. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Best way to edit tables in Wikipedia

Hi

I found you on the page about "best text editors" Wikipedia talk:Text editor support. I use Mac OS mainly (but some Windows), and I'd like to have a WYSIWYG editor to edit Wikipedia tables. What do you know of? For example, I'd like to easily add a column in List of natural disasters by death toll. Thanks Tntdj (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about any editor for Wikipedia tables, there may be one if you search for it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks for your pics

Oleg,

I am a PhD student in economics and I am using some of your SVG sources, extending them, for teaching Microeconomics. I have also developed quite a lot of Inkscape microeconomics graphics and I think I'll be sharing them on wikipedia as soon as they are (almost) bug-free.

Just two lines to say thank you for your contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.54.217.190 (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure I drew anything specifically for microeconomics, but I am glad to hear that you are finding some of my pictures useful. Your contributions will be very welcome. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an email earlier today. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Scouting articles by quality log

Hi, I gather you have written the code used to give us the material in this link in the header. Have you any idea why this shows Blackwell, Worcestershire oscillating from Stub to Start, Start to Stub, endlessly? It has an entry every day, yet no edits have been made to the talk page. No other article seems to do this. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It was because the article was rated as both Stub-class and Start-class [10]. The bot does not handle this sort of contradictory information very smoothly right now. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Systems articles by quality log

Hi Oleg, could you take a look at the recent moves on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Systems articles by quality log, say the last weeks. The bot seems to make the same large changes all over again. But maybe I am mistaken. Thanks you. -- Mdd (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It is because many of the articles have categories for two quality ratings. For example Talk:Accident analysis is in both Category:Unassessed Systems articles, which corresponds to quality Unassessed-Class, and in Category:Start-Class Systems articles, which corresponds to quality Start-Class. If you meant for "Unassessed Systems articles" to mean "unassessed field" or "not completely assessed" then you need to either change the name of the category, or remove Category:Unassessed Systems articles from Category:Systems articles by quality. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Carl, I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. I am refering to the large logs the bot is making since Januari 23, 2010, see here. It seems to me one day the whole listing is changed to unaccessed and the next day the whole listing becomes reassessed again. This seems to be going on for two weeks now. If I am mistaken, I am sorry, but it doesn't seem right. -- Mdd (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It is because the articles are marked as both Unassessed-Class and some other class; the bot is somewhat sensitive to contradictory ratings on the talk pages. The talk pages should not be in Category:Unassessed Systems articles if there is some other quality rating set. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oleg Alexandrov's tool

On the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Reference resources under "Citation tools" there is a line "Oleg Alexandrov's tool" that has a dead link www.math.ucla.edu/~aoleg/wp/books/. Is that tool now hosted somewhere else or should that line simply be removed? 131.211.113.4 (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The link is dead indeed. I removed it. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Signal processing?

Should Category:Signal processing be added to the list of those whose articles appear in the list of mathematics topics? I just found regressive discrete Fourier series, to which, when I found it, no articles linked at all. It bore the signal processing category. (It will presumably get picked up by the bots since I added the Fourier analysis category.) Michael Hardy (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that that category has way too much non-math to be considered mathematical. Perhaps a better idea could be to selectively add articles from there to some mathematics subcategories? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot not running

It appears that WP 1.0 bot is not updating Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chicago articles by quality log and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WikiProject Illinois articles by quality log.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right; there was an issue with the toolserver. It has been resolved, apparently, and so I expect today's automatic update to run. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Additive Schwarz method

Great entry! thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wihenao (talk • contribs) 16:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. But I am not the author of that article. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Is Mathbot sick?

Hi Oleg. I sent you an email. Paul August ☎ 15:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

(I replied by mail too.) This is the second report I am getting about this. Something is wrong with the module I am using to log in. Upgrading to its latest version does not seem to fix things. I'll contact those folks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Oleg. Awaiting developments. Paul August ☎ 17:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The login system changed recently, which broke all the previous libraries. See WP:BON. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Carl, thanks! Apparently the bug was fixed in MediaWiki::API, which I upgraded to. However, I still can't log in. I use MediaWiki::Bot, which uses MediaWiki::API. I have no more time for this for now but I hope the author of the MediaWiki::API whom I will contact now, can help. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If it helps, the "other" Mediawiki::API that VeblenBot uses is patched to fix this issue. I don't know how hard the conversion would be, but if the other library's maintainers are unresponsive it's an option to consider. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Perlwikipedia

Hi Oleg, I just posted yesterdayevening late to ST47, so ...

The complete new login subroutine:

sub login {
    my $self     = shift;
    my $editor   = shift;
    my $password = shift;
    my $cookies  = ".perlwikipedia-$editor-cookies";
    $self->{mech}->cookie_jar(
        { file => $cookies, autosave => 1 } );
    if ( !defined $password ) {
        $self->{mech}->{cookie_jar}->load($cookies);
        my $cookies_exist = $self->{mech}->{cookie_jar}->as_string;
        if ($cookies_exist) {
            $self->{mech}->{cookie_jar}->load($cookies);
            print "Loaded MediaWiki cookies from file $cookies\n" if $self->{debug};
            $self->{api}->{ua}->{cookie_jar} = $self->{mech}->{cookie_jar};
            return 0;
        } else {
            $self->{errstr} = "Cannot load MediaWiki cookies from file $cookies";
            carp $self->{errstr};
            return 1;
        }
    }

        my $res = $self->{api}->api( {
                action=>'login',
                lgname=>$editor,
                lgpassword=>$password } );
#       use Data::Dumper; print Dumper($res);
#    unless (ref($res) eq 'HTTP::Response' && $res->is_success) { return; }
    my $result = $res->{login}->{result};
    if ($result eq "NeedToken") {
        my $lgtoken=$res->{login}->{token};
        $res = $self->{api}->api( {
                action=>'login',
                lgname=>$editor,
                lgpassword=>$password,
                lgtoken=>$lgtoken } );
        $result = $res->{login}->{result};
#       use Data::Dumper; print Dumper($res);
    }
    $self->{mech}->{cookie_jar}->extract_cookies($self->{api}->{response});
    if ($result eq "Success") {
        return 0;
    } else {
        return 1;
    }
}

The new stuff is basically the 'if ($result eq "NeedToken")' extra check that does a second login with the provided token. Akoopal (talk) 07:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! The fix works, so I uploaded it to the project page (revision 211). I hope the change can be reviewed by the project owner when he's back. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Oleg, if I look at the diff, it seems that the code I had was a little different. I see a big if disappearing that starts with 'if (!$res) {'. That is error handling that should stay. So if you insert that block before my new code, that is probably better. Also in my new code there is a line '$result = $res->{login}->{result};' Before that block, it is best to insert the same check. If needed I am on freenode-irc as Akoopal. Akoopal (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the 'if (!$res) {' in your code above, that is why it is missing from the diff as well. I agree that the error handling in question is needed.

Can you reformat the login subroutine exactly as you want it, and then I can check it in? If I were the owner of the project I could give you direct write access to the repository, but I don't have the priviledges. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I gave it a try myself. See if it is as you intended. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed the code was not above, it was appearantly added to the trunk after the stable version I had installed. The way you added it, is indeed as I intended it, thanks. Akoopal (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please vote for Ordinal scale

I noticed that you made a contribution to the article Ordinal scale. I agree that it ”should be translated into English‘’ as stated by User:Kdammers. I nominated the article as a candidate for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive. Would you please vote for it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Collaboration_and_Improvement_Drive

Your vote would be especially meaningful since you focus on editing articles about mathematics. Perhaps you could encourage others to vote for this article as well.

Feel free to respond on my talk page.

We have until April 23, 2010 to get 4 votes. Thank you very much for your help! Tucoxn (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Snell's law illustration

An image differing from this one only in that that wavefronts are parallel straight lines would be useful for some purposes. How hard would that be to create? Michael Hardy (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Should not be hard, as mathematically the problem is very simple. Would be some work though (like a few hours), and I really lack time for this. Since you know Matlab, and I provided the code with the image, you can try it yourself. If you bring it to the point where you have a still image, I can prettify it and make it into an animation myself. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't actually know Matlab (otherwise I'd probably have done this by now), but I can fake it to some extent, and maybe that will be enough if I start with your code. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, just for you amusement, here's where I am so far:

>> Oleg.m
Frame1001.eps
Frame1002.eps
Frame1003.eps
Frame1004.eps
Frame1005.eps
Frame1006.eps
Frame1007.eps
Frame1008.eps
Frame1009.eps
Frame1010.eps
??? Attempt to reference field of non-structure array.

>>

before giving me this error message, it gave me a window with something resembling your picture, but motionless.

Maybe more later...... Michael Hardy (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

See if you can run the original code (I was able to). If not, please let me know. And then use just one iteration (see the code, each iteration creates one frame). Creating a full animation at this stage would just be a distraction. Later, you'd need to calculate the equation of each of the lines forming the wavefront (the problem is much simpler than with what you see in the picture above, since the wavefronts always remain lines). Anyhow, if you want to play with this I'll be interested in seeing what you get. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The original code is what gave the results above. No editing at all. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

When you start matlab, you should see the matlab version. I have Version 7.5.0.338, perhaps yours is much older. Again, try to see if you can run just one frame by editing the code and changing the number of iterations. Perhaps some other minor code modification could make that error go away. The code is overall short and not hard to understand. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It says "MATLAB 7.8.0 (R2009a)". Michael Hardy (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what I can do. Perhaps when you pasted the code something went wrong. Or you can do a little debugging yourself if you wish, see my previous comment (you can for example comment some parts of the code to see where the error is coming from). I know you are not very familiar with programming, but the code is simple. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

List of mathematicians

The list of mathematics articles seems to be updating correctly, but the list of mathematicians doesn't show up at all in the last 500 mathbot contribs. Is the list of mathematicians updater broken? — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll remember to take a look when I get home one evening. Should not be hard to fix. Thanks for pointing this out. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the bot was choking on the following:

{{#if:Shmoys, David|{{DEFAULTSORT:Shmoys, David}}}}
[[Category:{{#switch:{{uc:}}
 || UNKNOWN | MISSING = Year of birth missing {{#switch:{{uc:}}||LIVING=(living people)}}
 | #default =  births
}}]]
[[Category:{{#switch:{{uc:}}
 || LIVING  = Living people
 | UNKNOWN | MISSING  = Year of death missing
 | #default =  deaths
}}]]

from the article on David Shmoys due to some pedantic error checking I had there. I fixed that now. Thanks a lot for noticing this.

By the way, there was some concern recently at the math wikiproject talk page that too few people are in charge of very important things affecting this project. Along those lines, if you want of course, I can give you write access to mathbot's code base and account. Not that I won't be around of course. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That would probably be a safe backup; I would basically just archive it away unless it became impossible to reach you for some reason.

In the longer term, I wonder if it would be worthwhile to get a multi-maintainer project on toolserver for all the math bots. The procedure for this is much easier than it used to be. Getting new user accounts is still a slow process, and individual user accounts are still required to access the multi-maintainer project. But the multi-maintainer project has some advantages over having lots of different servers running different bots. Let me know what you think. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I added you to mathbot's svn repository committers. Having a multi-maintainer project would be nice. Perhaps even mathbot's account can become math wikiproject's central bot. Or whichever way is acceptable. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Mathbot request

Hi! I was wondering whether you could have Mathbot do at WP:CFD/W#Discussions awaiting closure what it does at WP:AFDO (i.e., adding a link to the new day's log, displaying and updating the number of open discussions)? It would be quite helpful, especially at times (like now) when CfD is heavily backlogged. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to, but that would be at least several hours of programming time, and in all honesty, I really lack free time, real life just crowds out everything out for the time being. The code doing AfD is publicly available, at http://code.google.com/p/mathbot/source/browse/trunk/afd/afd.cgi (it is not a big code). The code is pretty simple as far as Perl goes. If somebody would like to use this as a basis for what you want they would be very welcome. Oleg Alexandrov (talk)

I understand completely, and thank you for linking to the bot's code. I'm not a programmer myself, but I will ask at BOTREQ. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Mathoutin

Hiya Oleg! Is it possible that MathBot may have gotten logged out? See here for example. No matter, best regards! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your report. It's mathin now. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"Mathin"? I think my day has just been made! :) Take great care, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Mathbot and new AfD log pages

It seems that Mathbot is no longer creating new AfD log pages. Even though Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 15 is a redlink (at the time of this writing anyway), it shows

Fetching Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 15. 
Sleep 1

Page exists

Fetching Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 16. 
Sleep 1

Page exists

Fetching Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 17. 
Sleep 1

Page exists

Fetching Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 18. 
Sleep 1

Page exists

Even though none of them exist. Any idea what's causing that? Tim Song (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It appears to be a bug in perlwikipedia, which is used by my bot. I filed a bug report. I hope there will be a response soon. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently there is a deeper bug going on, it seems that if a page does not exist, the Wikipedia server returns a "2", which was confusing my bot as it thought that the page exists while having that "2" as text. I put in a short term fix (a page with only a "2" on it will be considered a new page). Let's hope there will be a longer term permanent solution. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Birth and death dates for nonexistent mathematicians

It's not very important, but the entry for Blanche Descartes in List of mathematicians (D) shouldn't have the "?- " for dates, just as Bourbaki doesn't. I fixed it, but the bot put it back. I guess you coded in Bourbaki as a special case? Maybe the bot should check for Category:Collective pseudonyms and/or Category:Nonexistent people. Ntsimp (talk) 07:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I had Bourbaki hard-coded as a special case. I did the same thing for Blanche Descartes now. If this issue keeps on repeating I'll implement a more robust solution. Thank you for your note. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Philosobot

See:User:Philosobot

Greetings Oleg. I have made a proposal to create a bot for the philosophy department which is basically a knock-off of Mathbot. I just wanted to give you a heads up. I am a novice about it, and so I may have some questions. However, I feel confident that that there will not be many. Perhaps there are ways we could combine some functions. Be well, Greg Bard 21:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, let me know if you have any questions. Also, Mathbot's source is publicly available, if you ever want to take a look. Wish you well with your philosopher bot. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Oleg. Be well,Greg Bard 23:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Atkins Tennis Center

The conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atkins Tennis Center was delete but it appears to have been remade with copyright material. It should probably be redeleted. Sadads (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Raster (PNG) uploads made from vector sources

Hello!

One of these files I nominated for deletion because no reported troubles with SVG rendering are discovered. Could you also upload a vector version of File:Discrete probability distribution illustration.png (as you claim that saved it in EPS), or make that EPS file available at least? Of course, the same wish about all other such images, if there are. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be some good effort to dig up the original svg. Also note that the image File:Discrete probability distribution illustration.svg which you created does not reproduce properly the original File:Discrete probability distribution illustration.png. I'd rather have a correct PNG than an incorrect SVG. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

They differ because I dislike your blue boxes. Their thick vertical sides add nothing to the perception. But if you claim that my illustrations are incorrect, then give some arguments please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You missed the red circles at the ends, which emphasize whether the points in question are open or closed endpoints. Also, it is not clear in your picture where 0 and 1 are. They should be to the left of the lines, so that it is clear that they refer to the y axis, not the x axis. You need to have some kind of axes, that was the purpose of the blue boxes. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What ends? A random variable is assumed to be real-valued, unless explicitly stated otherwise. Does the real line have an end in visible areas of the Universe? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition, in the picture File:Mixed probability distribution.svg the curve gets inside of the open circle. That looks odd and inconsistent. I made sure that all open circles are white inside. 20:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It is easier to fix than to discuss. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you fix as well File:Discrete probability distribution illustration.svg (the open circles). Good point about the line ends. Could you however put the 0 and 1 to the left of the lines, rather than on top of them, so that it is clear what axis they refer to? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this fine now? If no further correction proposed, I will fix the rest of images in the same way. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This is good. The 0 and 1 do not look perfectly aligned with the lines, they are a little shifted downward, perhaps they could be aligned a bit (that's the trouble with svg, you are at the mercy of the renderer). Other than that it is fine. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary checker broken again?

Hi, I noticed the Mathbot edit summary checker may be broken again. It tells me 100% for major edits and 0% for minor edits. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to look at it one of these days. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it. The issue was due to the fact that the html generated by server changed in non-trivial ways. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Lists of articles checking

The appears to be a problem with the tool for checking lists of articles. At thge stage of trying to store the new version of the Talk page, it produces something like:

Modifying the talk page of "List of numerical analysis topics" Submitting Talk:List_of_numerical_analysis_topics.wiki. Sleep 1

Error message is: What is on the server is not what was just submitted! at /home/mathbot/public_html/cgi-bin/wp/modules/bin/wikipedia_fetch_submit.pl line 96 eval {...} called at /home/mathbot/public_html/cgi-bin/wp/modules/bin/wikipedia_fetch_submit.pl line 63 main::wikipedia_submit('Talk:List_of_numerical_analysis_topics.wiki', 'List articles missing from the [[List of numerical analysis t...', '== List updater == \x{a}In subsection A below, listed are article...', 10, 1) called at /home/mathbot/public_html/cgi-bin/wp/modules/bin/wikipedia_fetch_submit.pl line 174 main::submit_file_nosave('Talk:List_of_numerical_analysis_topics.wiki', 'List articles missing from the [[List of numerical analysis t...', '== List updater == \x{a}In subsection A below, listed are article...', 10, 1) called at ./lists.pl.cgi line 96

... it then repeats and stops eventaully without having created an updated Talk page. Melcombe (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Something must have changed on the server I guess. I'll look at it in the weekend. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. I put in a fix. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Moving the "Domain (complex analysis)" entry to a new entry "Domain (mathematical analysis)"

Hi Oleg, some time has passed since I contacted you for advices on Wikipedia entries. Now I have a proposal concerning the Domain (complex analysis) stub: my proposal is exactly to move it to a new entry Domain (mathematical analysis) and to create redirection pages Domain (complex analysis) and Domain (real analysis), in order to not miss any link to its present content and to redirect new links to related concepts in real analysis there. Of corse I'll edit the new entry according the scheme I'll describe below: the reasons that inspired my proposal are the following ones

1. The concept of domain is ubiquitous in all parts of mathematical analysis, not only in complex analysis: think of partial differential equations, the theory of Sobolev spaces, theory of functions of several variables and the like, just to say a few. Therefore it would be interesting to have an entry that explain the basic concept of what a domain in mathematical analysis is (an open connected set), why it is so important in analysis, and redirecting the interested reader to many Wikipedia entries related, already existing or to be created by wikipedians .
2. I think the best way to start such a entry is a section on domain in real vector spaces: every complex domain is isomorphic to a real domain, and the first classification of such manifolds is done according to the the smoothness caracteristic of their boundary. Main classes are
   • Caccioppoli sets
   • Sets whose boundary is $C^{k}$-smooth
   • Sets whose boundary is Holder or Lipschitz continuous
   • Lyapunov manifolds
   • Piecewise smoot domains
   • Domains with the cone property or the flexible cone property
3. Domains can also have convexity or concavity properties which have important applications in the fields of optimization and partial differential equations
4. Domains in complex spaces/manifolds have the same topological structure as domains in real vector spaces, but have also other distintive characteristcs that need to be cited
   • Hartogs domains
   • Classical domains
   • Lineally convex domains: this should be merged with the complex convexity entry
   • Reinhardt domains
   • Runge domains
   • Polinomialy convex domains
   • Holomorphically convex domains
   • Pseudoconvex domains
   • Logarithmically convex domains

Let me know what do you think abot this problem: have a nice day. :D Daniele.tampieri (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have a wider discussion on the topic. Perhaps you could post this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the Idea. I'll contact the creator of the stub and propose the plan to him and then to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. :D ;D Daniele.tampieri (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I found that the creator of the entry was Oded Schramm, now deceased. I'll propose the plan directly to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Daniele.tampieri (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Mathbot

Hi, the AfD discussions for 6 September are appearing in WP:AFD/Old even though they're only 6 days old. Not sure if this is something to do with Mathbot or not? Black Kite (t) (c) 17:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I took a look and confirmed what you saw, and I planned to fix it. But now I see it got fixed by itself. I looked at the bot source code. It says that only discussions older than seven days should be listed at WP:AFD/Old, so the bot was doing the right thing.

I don't know how to explain this. Let's see if it happens again. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for Feedback

A new editor has written an article Multivariate kernel density estimation and requested feedback. The editor seems to have basic Wikipedia style under control; it needs the review of someone familiar with the field. (I'll also crosspost a couple specific editors.)x-post with Math Reference Desk.--SPhilbrickT 21:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Bruin

Dear Oleg; As the artist that sculpted the UCLA Bruin, Iam distressed that you have not included a credit to the artist. I am sure it was an oversight and I would appreciate it if you would please do so. Sincerely yours Billy Thomas Fitzgerald aka FitzgrizzlyFitzgrizzly (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. It never occurred to me to even wonder who the creator was, but I understand how you'd feel. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 07:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi there. Since you are the one who posted the message about edit summaries on my talk page, and you seem to answer a lot of the questions on the Help talk:Edit summary page, I wanted to ask you something. I have been having a problem recently with another editor that refuses to put edit summaries in his edits. I have placed several templates, including Template:Summary and Template:Editsummary, but the editor has removed them, and has written on my talk page, saying they are not mandatory, and if I were to continue to place these templates on his talk page, he would "report me for abuse". Is he allowed to do that? Or, a better question: what should I do? Thanks. Yvesnimmo (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The page Help:Edit summary says: "It is good practice to fill in the Edit Summary field, or add to it in the case of section editing, as this helps others to understand the intention of your edit.". So edit summaries are not mandatory but very desirable.

You could tell that person that if he cares about other editors then he should put a little more attention and effort into putting edit summaries. It is good practice. If he refuses to listen, well, there is not much which can be done. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Could I actually get "in trouble" for notifying him of this, though? Yvesnimmo (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you can't get into trouble for that. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Yvesnimmo (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo of Taylor L. Booth

Hi Oleg,

I see you are looking for photo's of mathematicians (User:Mathbot/Mathematicians missing photo). I found the photo of Taylor L. Booth on http://www.computer.org/portal/web/awards/taylortribute. But I have no experience in getting the permission to use his photo in Wikipedia. Can you handle this? Regards, SchreyP (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure this is going to work. You need to ask IEEE (see the note at the bottom of the article you link to) to release this picture under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. See more details at Commons:OTRS. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Oleg, I will have to do some reading first. The first link you gave seems broken. Did you mean http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ ? SchreyP (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the link. I think Commons:OTRS describes the process. The biggest hurdle is to get permission from the copyright owners. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the updated link. This makes more sense now, but it still a big chuck for reading...

In the meanwhile I will try to improve the article on Taylor L. Booth first, before asking this permission. Matter of increasing the chances to get it. SchreyP (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

santana for 1.0 assessment

hello oleg,

can you create an assassment for 1.0 for santana and adding a quality statistic table like here? thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not work with that one for a while. Try to see if these instructions are helpful. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Happy Holidays!

Dear Oleg Alexandrov, Best wishes to you and your family this holiday season, whether you are celebrating Christmas or a different holiday. It's a special time of the year for almost everyone, and there's always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! ;) Love, --Meaghan [talk] ≈ 14:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help:Edit summary listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Help:Edit summary. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Help:Edit summary redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji 19:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)