User talk:Qwertyus/archive5

Dawoodi Bohras

We may have gotten on wrong foot . you seem tobe experienced editor. your intention of getting involved might be in good faith. Mine is same. trust we can colloborate positivly.Rukn950 (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

To get you aquainted with Dawoodi Bohra I would refer you complete non bais source , Mr Jonah Blank [1]

you can download his book from here [2]

I'd actually been reading bits of that book on GBooks. Your link looks like a copyvio, are you sure it's legit? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure about that link but that book is available on Google BooksRukn950 (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Research Unix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Userland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hard links to directories in OS X

(Just FYI.) The ability to make hard links to directories was added to OS X to support a form of de-duplication for Time Machine - Time Machine creates, on the backup volume, a duplicate directory hierarchy, giving the state of the file system at the time the backup was done, and, if a file or directory didn't change between two backups on the backup volume, they're hard-linked together, so there's only one copy. A "change" to a directory includes changes to anything underneath it, e.g. if foo/bar changed, so did foo.

(It would have been nice had Apple decided to go with ZFS, as I think the version of ZFS available at the time did de-duplication, so they wouldn't have had to use a hack involving hard links to directories - just use ZFS with de-duplication on backup volumes.) Guy Harris (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Deduplication feature in ZFS looks great but it comes with significant penalties, as between 1 and 5 GB of RAM is required for every TB of storage for storing and managing deduplication tables. Thus, hard links are a much more efficient solution for deduplicating (compressed) backup files. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

OER inquiry

Hi Qwertyus, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hamilton C shell

Following up on your remark that you found it fun to learn about this shell, I encourage you (if it's of interest) to send mail to the author (contact info is on the site), mention you edit on Wikipedia and ask for a free copy to help you review the article. Use a throwaway email address if you'd like to preserve your anonymity. These requests never get turned down and you're not promising to do anything. Msnicki (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwertyus. You have new messages at Nyashinski's talk page.
Message added 05:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nyashinski (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

C dynamic memory allocation

I didn't understand this edit. There's a sentence fragment that left an incomplete thought. So I'm not quite sure where you were going in this section and I can't say if WP:OR might be a concern. But you may need to think about sources. Msnicki (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Twitter diplomacy

Hi, Qwertyus.

I'm not sure how best to address your concern with the Twitter diplomacy page; it's my first article.

I created the Twitter diplomacy page. I'm a master's student in Russia, and I chose this topic to satisfy a requirement for one of my courses. It's not an ad; I have no affiliation with Twiplomacy nor with anyone listed in the article.

The article uses Twiplomacy's numbers only to highlight the main point of the article, which is that diplomats and foreign publics are getting closer thanks to Twitter. Why did you not highlight this article as an ad for Twitter?

The page is much more robust than those for digital diplomacy and Facebook diplomacy, two pages that barely qualify as articles. If the references to Twiplomacy are so contentious, some of them can be removed. I'm not sure why deletion of the entire page or "blowing it up and starting over" is your proposed solution.

Thanks. Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.a.kelm (talk • contribs) 17:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Because I feel the entire article hinges on that website's research. The way it's presented (first assert that Twitter is very important by WP:OR, then extensively cite one piece of research from a commercial party) looks suspiciously similar to the kind of spam that many companies dump on Wikipedia.

(You're right that the other two pages are of very low quality.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014 disambig contest: let's do it again!

Greetings fellow disambiguator! Remember back in February when we made history by clearing the board for the first time ever, for the monthly disambiguation contest? Let's do it again in May! I personally will be aiming to lead the board next month, but for anyone who thinks they can put in a better effort, I will give a $10 Amazon gift card to any editor who scores more disambiguation points in May. Also, I will be setting up a one-day contest later in the month, and will try to set up more prizes and other ways to make this a fun and productive month. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

edits to Armadillo (C++ library)

As requested, I've added a further reference/source for the Armadillo (C++ library). The reference is published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Apologies for seemingly overwriting your edits -- no warring was intended, but simply corrections and clarifications.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtfjbl (talk • contribs) 10:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

An extra source is cool. But it doesn't solve your apparent use of the page as ad space. The favorable comparison to uBLAS, for example, should be cited from a third-party source. I made this very clear in my edit summaries, and your "clarifications" include restoration of policy-violating material QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I've rephrased the relation to uBLAS. Is it ok ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtfjbl (talk • contribs) 10:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Stephen! ^Coming... 11:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Starwarsgeek's comment

Hi why did you get rid of my edits on Childbirth, and star wars episode lll revenge of the sith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starwarsgeek894 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the edit summaries? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Your recent revert

I know fixing these sorts of things are annoying when patrolling recent changes, but it's better to correctly add the {{cn}} template on behalf of the user than revert a valid attempt to challenge unsourced material. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

However to be fair, with articles on movies/novels we usually don't source the plot summary as it's assumed to be from the primary source... — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Madaline, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sigmoid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Twinkle

Hi Qwertyus (goodness, you really did choose a confusing username! I was about to post this to Marcus). Not sure if you saw (I just noticed your post at WT:TW being archived), but the bug you reported about CSD notification wikilinking was fixed some time ago [3]. Thanks for the report. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks This, that and the other! Btw., I had this username for almost four years when the Marcus Qwertyus account was created :) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I guess I've been more involved in areas where Marcus is active, and have never come across you before! — This, that and the other (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Flemish revolts against Maximilian of Austria

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Flemish revolts against Maximilian of Austria you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I've started the review at Talk:Flemish revolts against Maximilian of Austria/GA1--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm MrX. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, DoABitOfGood.com, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. - MrX 22:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Homeland Security Research edit

Hi, thank you for contributing to the Homeland Security Research edit. I am an officer in the company, see www.hsrc.biz. The information you reverted to is incorrect! The company is not part of the DHS. It is a private, not a public organization. It is a critical error!! Our potential clients are misled by the wikipedia article. You can take out whatever marketing blurb you deem inappropriate. However, please do not revert to the previous version. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsrc1234 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Moving this discussion to Talk:Homeland Security Market Research#Part of US Gov't or not?. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Quicksort Article changes

This is with reference to the wikipedia quicksort article : [4]. I did some minor changes which you reverted back. I am a new user so please help me out. The problem that I wanted to resolve was that in even 120% resolution, the code was overflowing towards the right into the image. I wanted to correct that so I introduced the 'pre' tag for the code with auto scrolling enabled. I can't understand how it is breaking the existing code though.

Also, while using the 'pre' tag, if I want to bold the font then what should I do, because the normal ' ' ' are not working and instead show up in the rendered version of the page.

Hope you can give me some pointers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshitm26 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The ''' showing up is exactly why I reverted your edit. I'm not sure what to do about this, but one option is to stop manually putting bold and italic in pseudocode; I prefer using <source lang="pascal"> and use some Pascal conventions. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Re:Welcome!

Thank you, Qwertyus (your name is quite a low complexity art). I have been on Wikipedia for some years but mainly worked on the Vietnamese version. Are you an administrator here? ngocminh.oss (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope, just a regular editor. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Nice to meet you :-) ngocminh.oss (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Feature hashing

Hi Qwertyus, there's a bug somewhere breaking the page, see Talk:Feature hashing. Cheers Widefox; talk 23:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Michael Hart

I'm glad you're satisfied with the references about the line lengths. I was a bit surprised that thousands of lines of equal length by Hart in the Gutenberg mail archives were not convincing enough as evidence. ;-) YewBowman (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

YewBowman, I'm trying to abide by WP:PRIMARY here, specifically "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source." No number of examples of Hart's writing suffices to establish the statements made about this style, as it could be an artifact of the specific examples cited, or a style adhered to by some group that he belonged to, rather than the man himself. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Qwertyus, and for pointing to WP:PRIMARY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YewBowman (talk • contribs) 19:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Bias variance dilemma

You're welcome, glad you found it as interesting as I did ! I'd not heard of this rule before reading Gigerenzer's latest book "Risk Savvy", which has just come out. Highly recommended. Robma (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

INSEAD

You seem to revert my edits. Care to explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by האורים והתומים (talk • contribs) 09:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not discussing that here, head over to Malicious, unjustified removals or defamations against INSEAD. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Flemish revolts against Maximilian of Austria

The article Flemish revolts against Maximilian of Austria you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Flemish revolts against Maximilian of Austria for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thunderbirds Are Go!

Just a heads up. I removed your prod at this article because I think a fair argument could be made that it satisfies the GNG. I agree with you that it's probably too soon, but I was surprised by the amount of coverage that I found once I did a few Google searches. The original article gave absolutely no indication of notability, and I think that I've added enough sources that it makes at least a credible claim now. I have no problem if you want to start a merge proposal or bring it to AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's not go through AfD. The series will probably either launch or be canceled (*), in which case it's better to already have a stub article than wait for a lesser version to be recreated.

(*) The third option is that it's postponed indefinitely, of course. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion denied

Qwertyus,

I denied your speedy deletion at The School of Applied Arts. Educational institutions do not qualify under WP:CSDA7. You may nominate for proposed deletion or launch a deletion discussion if you wish. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Quicksort

Hi Qwertyus,

I found an error on the Quicksort page so am hoping you can verify the fix and get it changed somehow. I'm new to this so am unfamiliar to the procedure. I see you have made some changes in the past so am hoping you can help me out.

On the page

Original page

Under the C# section

The line

loe.Add(pivot_val);

Should be changed to

resultSet.Add(pivot_val);

loe gets sorted and added to resultSet before that point, but loe is never used again after that. If the pivot_val is added to loe then the pivot_val is lost.

Also, a small speed boost can be had by changing the line

gt.Add(pivot_val);

To

gt.Insert(0, pivot_val);

Since we know that pivot_val is between loe and gt, we can save some sorting time by placing pivot_val at the beginning of gt instead of at the end.

WhiteLeroy (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't have an account on Rosettacode and I can't be bothered to make one. That website is unrelated to Wikipedia. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Note

You reported Shejiao to AIV, but you didn't even Welcome them to show them the rules, or provide any warnings? That's not kosher. I have blocked, but it's unacceptable to not at least try and guide them the panda ₯’ 09:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I forgot that even such a blatant spammer should get a welcome. As you'll have seen, the only thing the user did was post the same spam to random pages, unrelated to the websites they were pushing.

I'll be more careful next time, but shouldn't you have turned down the request in favor of a level 4im warning? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: React - The Anti-Counterfeiting Network

Hello Qwertyus. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of React - The Anti-Counterfeiting Network, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article does "credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". I found a United Nations Economic Commission for Europe mention of its purported founder. Rather promotional, self-serving and sorely neededing a re-name = yes, but WP:A7 = no. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 8 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Founding of Rome page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Base Connect Page Edits

Hey There Qwertyus,

I'm inquiring about the content of the Base Connect wikipedia page. While it contains a significant amount of resource reverences, the page seems to be written with a clear angle that does not offer the public a fair understanding of the organization. Can we discuss the content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaf651 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss article content at its talk page. There's already been a fair amount of discussion there a few years ago. I've put it on my watchlist. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

National Computerization Agency

I de-speedied this article about a government agency. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Why? According to WP:CSD#G11, "anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

O.K., that's fair reason to delete, but I don't see how G11 applies to an article about (a) a government agency, and (b) that's not entirely promotional, that is, that is not a total wreck. Prod it or send it to AfD if you feel strongly about it. That will give others a week to try to stubify it or fix the problems. Bearian (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Mohammad Burhanuddin article

Dear Qwertyus, I think your aim is to have NPOV maintained and I perfectly agree with you and I am first person to honour Wiki rules as I am a big fan of Wiki and I respect and value it all above any media in the world as it is self correcting a sea of information.

I don't think that there should be third person (they are also part and partial of Wiki like us, but we should not give chance to bother them, being true wikipedian) to be involved when there are two editors working for the cause of Wiki.

I understand that I am a DB and it is but natural that I have some inclination toward it, but please make it sure that my intention is never to suppress any true or well published information. As I know, all the inside facts of DB more then you and you are the third neutral party so you can judge where my language is tilting towars one side, and you have all the freedom given by Wiki to make the sentence/information best to NPOV. But incomplete information/ wrong information, which has solution available in media is to be well presented for purpose of general viewer remaining in the limit of Wiki, as there are elements available to make propoganda using Wiki, and we must avoid it at any cost.--Md iet (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope , I am clear in my expression although I am very weak in English. I respect your intentions still I request your full cooperation in the matter.

redundant flow control code because of code that is never reached

Your reversal of my edit of the code example in the lemma Fork (system call) ignores the reason for the change: removal of unneeded flow control; the comments /* NEVER REACHED */ were only added to make it explicit. I rather see you reverse your reversal than that I start a flip flop.

In the code example when a certain condition is met the if block of code ends execution, i.e. no code thereafter is run in that case. For that reason putting the code that is to be run when the condition in *not* met in an else block is superfluous and adds unneeded levels of indenting and so forth. In fact having code in an else block when the if block ends execution is outright bad coding. (BTW. many seasoned libraries offer calls that do some sanity checks on entry, not in a sequence of if .. else if .. and so forth, but just a sequence of simple if blocks that each exits (return) from the call when the sanity check fails).

Besides, the given reason for the reversal, that the never reached comments are redundant because any C programmer understands that exit() ends execution is beside the point. Examples are to be understood a well as possible by non experienced programmers, by people with possibly no knowledge of the semantics of the standard C libs. --Paul Oranje (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The extra level of indentation shows the symmetry of the three cases. In real code, I would in fact put all three cases in a switch with the parent as the default case, but I'm avoiding that to make the code readable to non-C programmers. It's also more robust to change, although I find this a matter of taste (not one of "outright bad coding") and I don't care too much about it. Note that only the -1 case is an error check. The other two cases are parent and child, not error and success.

Your comments are overly verbose and distracting, though, and you won't find such comments in seasoned libraries. Any sane programmer can figure out that exit exits the program. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Quicksort and Stack (abstract data type) articles

Hello! Regarding your edit on the Stack (abstract data type) article, just wanted to let you know that I simply didn't have the energy required to dive into the provided content, and I've moved it over to Quicksort article pretty much in a blind manner. However, in my opinion numerous examples from the Stack (abstract data type) article should be simply deleted leaving only one, perhaps what's available in Stack (abstract data type) § Expression evaluation and syntax parsing). All those examples are simply making a complete mess of that article. Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, it didn't really fit in either article because its terminology is different from the rest of Quicksort, and the terminology wasn't explained in the context of Stack (abstract data type) either. I think WP is better off without this example anywhere; it could probably be improved using the reference that was at the bottom of it, but I don't have the time/energy to go after this either and I honestly don't care too much.

Re: trimming the number of examples: I do think backtracking, or maybe just DFS, is an important and easy to explain application of stacks, but you're right that the examples are taking up far too much space. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Just as a note, I'm totally fine with deleting Quicksort as an example there. Moving forward, I'll trim the examples as that has been already proposed in Talk:Stack (abstract data type) § The "Applications" section should be split., and we'll see how that unwinds. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• upon Soar train crash|Barrow upon Soar]]: collision between a train and a demolished bridge.}}
• |}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Largest Human Flag of Nepal

Hello Qwertyus. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Largest Human Flag of Nepal, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: has a source and if it is the world's largest that indicates at least enough significance to survive A7. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough! QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Taxation in Latvia

Why did you delete some of my citations on my new article "taxation in Latvia"... Not that it matter I added some new ones I think are better... Just pure interest :P MicroMacroMania (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Sorry, we had an edit conflict and I resolved it the wrong way. (I wish Wikipedia had a good merge tool for this kind of thing.)

Won't happen again!

QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Dude its not a problem :) Anyway I have added pages about tax systems around the world, added pages about taxation in portugal, slovakia, bulgaria, lithuania, latvia and czech.. But still long way to go before whole world covered!MicroMacroMania (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Good luck with covering the world; this is interesting basic information for anyone interested in the global economy! QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Taxation in Croatia and Hungary added :D MicroMacroMania (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

New page start; how to avoid Speedy Deletion?

Hi - I've no idea how to start a new page, so threw together this. If Daijō-ji needs to be deleted, the so be it. But I don't know how to signal the existence of that start other than by using talk on that page. --BenTremblay (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

As a rule, you can't link from main space into user space. To start a new page but have it reviewed before publication, try WP:AfC: just put {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page and someone will come by and review it. (You can also look for an appropriate WikiProject and ask there, maybe WP:WikiProject Buddhism or WP:WikiProject Japan.)

Sorry, I was going to post this to your talk page, but I got distracted IRL :)

HTH,

QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh yaa sure fine, you're allowed to get distracted ;-p

Zounds, major breach of netiquette; had no clue about that. In any case: thanks much for the solid. I'll copy that and see if I can't implement it on my next stab. For now: long hours keyboarding / ghastly neck cramps. (As if elitists care! huh huh) cheers and thanks again. ^5 --BenTremblay (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

What can admins do in this case?

Regarding WP:AN3#User:Md iet reported by User:Qwertyus (Result: ). Do you have a recommendation of what admins can do? I had an exchange at User talk:Md iet#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion and the response was cooperative, though I don't know if there may be an ongoing problem that the user is refusing to address. Since you're experienced and you don't seem to be a partisan in the dispute you may have some advice on what to do. Though I see the outline of the dispute clearly (two rival claimants to the succession) I'm not sure what role Md iet has played in the editing problems and I don't know how to fix whatever's broken. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me share my view of the problem first.

I'm not actually sure if Md iet is partisan in the conflict as such; the edits that led to my report cite claims by one party as fact, while restoring self-published sources from the other party as well. It looks like the problem is more one of WP:TRUTH than picking sides, with a preference for partisan primary sources and their claims over outsider news outlets that put these claims into perspective.

And indeed, I'm non-partisan. I'd never heard of this whole sect until I noticed the heavy editing in Special:RecentChanges. I decided to get involved when I found out that there are actually good third-party sources about the conflict, but WP was making a mess of (mis-)citing them. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

In the case of a real-world dispute, if there is a constant stream of non-neutral or poorly-informed edits admins will sometimes resort to full protection. Do you think that's a good choice here? It does not prevent all progress because people can still make WP:Edit requests. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking so much interest in the issue ,and guiding on Wiki rules. You may be furious against repeated undo of your revision, but so I am. I have taken your reporting the case for 3RR in a positive way and I don't have any grienance on your reaction, as it is a human behaviour. I request you to kindly go through my explanation below. Although I declared that I belong to the sect, I have full respect for Wiki, and your intentions are also well clear that you are hard fighting for the same.

The main difference between you and me is I know in and out of DB and trying to put complete things in a manner best to NPOV, as reported in the sources. There is tradition with DB supreme authority, our religious heirarchy. They believe that there action are god driven and they need not give explanation to anybody. In the process neither they involve in any press conference or issue their comnfidential document/reports/information to general media/public. They allow the limited disclosure only through legal commitee or website like Mumenin. The information revealed in our community discourse are also not allowed to be photographed or recorded without their specific anouncement topic to topic. Hence it is very difficult to get internal information on mass media. Same is the case with Dairy matter.

Let me disclose you the another fact, which is related with critisised action of london hospital reports blown up by media/ hufingon post/ involving American doctors reports etc. A complete video recording of the incident showing late Syedna on London hospital bed was telecasted all over the world for DB and presented wherever DB live in a public discourse. I was witness and it has clearly presentation of each and every step of action of 4th June, 2014, where late syedna has openly declared his succession in a clearcut gesture in presence of his family where his eldest son Qadir as well as mufaddal was present among. Although the voice of late syedna was not clear or we could understand, but all the ceremony was perfectly making clear what intentions he has, and body language of every body present their including late Syedna was so clear that no body can have any doubt on ceremony. Regarding consuming 'sharbat'(a gesture sweat drink), the video clearly indicate every body consuming the same after ceremony completed, and late syedna also had first test as a ruital, may be only a indicative gesture, as his condition was not well, but sharbat was first presented to him as respect, and he tested it. After the ceremony Qadir wanted to bow down to feet of Mufaddal as respect of highest religious authority, but mufaddal didnot allow his elder brother bowing to him and they hugged each other with face (as of tears in eyes) of Muffadal in gratitude.

This all above facts are not known to general public, and our religious heirarchy is least bothered as they know that they are right. This is disclosed to you by me because you are taking interest in the DB matters and your intentions are pretty neat and clean. So as mine but difference is I know the facts and I can sense the mischief. But as a human being, the POV factor comes in picture and for Wiki presentation has it's limitations and we have to present the matter in best encyclopedian manner I understand. General public only recognise the information, presented on reliable media, and we all know about the integrity of media reporters and their main intentions making things sensual/dramatic to get max.attention /sale of their news. Wiki is the only media where a free, fair and self correcting matter can be available.I request your cooperation within limit of Wiki rules. Please go through the following explation also I presented:

EdJohnston, Thanks for hearing my above appeal in last para and deciding favourably. I feel that I am blocked for on the reasons of my reverts of last complain of user Dear Qw, and further recommendations of Dear Anup. I accept of my fault of too aggressive while facing unjust, but please don't blame for violating Wiki rules knowingly, which is a unjust for Wiki fan like me.May Please have a look at my following analysis:

Diffs of the my reverts in sequence

1.10:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 617429012 by Qwertyus (talk) unjustified removal. Rather removing please make it important information readable.":

Undo was done on 23 rd July as earlier deletion by User:Qwertyus was done without proper explanation on 18th July. The inclusion of material from primary source(even further marked as ^{[unreliable source?]} to not to mis guide viewer) was done( This matter was properly discussed in talk page at [5] where User:Qwertyus himself was involved, and the matter further sustained there till 20th Aug ([6], when a particular editor user:summichum has intensely removed it, without proper reasoning.)

(All the material including well sourced material was immediately deleted again by User:Qwertyus within 4 minutes (second deletion 2RR) .)

2.10:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 618101779 by Qwertyus (talk) revised , may please discuss at talk page before further removal.":

I reinstated material, with request for discussion before further removal, ( but all the material again deleted within 2 min.)

3.07:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 618103062 by Qwertyus (talk)":

I reinstated the material on 24 th Aug with due revision deleting matter of dairy (which User:Qwertyus had some reservations) and requested for discussion at talk page before further removal.

All the three steps above are well justified as:

1. My first revision (23 rd July,10:01)was well discussed at talk page.

2. Second revision (23rd July, 10:15) was also well justified as deletion by User:Qwertyus was done within 2 mins of my inclusion without any further explanation or discussion 23rd july, 10:03.

User:Qwertyus has not restrained himself, even after after my request for discussion he has again deleted the matter third time, within 4 mins a clear 3RR[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Burhanuddin&action=history, 23rd July , 10:19]

3.My third step is also justified as I restrained myself after two immediate deletion of User:Qwertyus I did not do third revision, I valued User:Qwertyus reservations on inclusion of primary source, deleted matter of dairy part, and done the third revision which sustained till 20th Aug, when User:Qwertyus has again deleted the remaining well sourced material also [7] a 4RR case. My above explanation proves that I was not at all of any fault three reverts noted in July by User:Qwertyus in a previous 3RR complaint. This does not prove allegation that I ‘continues to make edits that are questionable under our sourcing rules so long as they favor his particular faction’ .

In the present complaint , comment that ‘this diff it sounds like Md iet is acting as a lawyer for one of the parties’ seems a bit aggressive , everybody has right to have his own POV, only thing is in Wiki rules are to be followed first. My justification at [8] are within wiki rules and I cannot be blamed or blocked for that.

For the comment : ‘When regular editors need to spend this much time undoing his changes it is evidence of a pattern of disruption’ I am really sorry that I had that impression, but I assure that after this controversy , I had a big lesson that why inline citation is important, and why Wiki made it’s rules so strict. Wiki is just a free and fair self correcting encyclopedia , which anybody can trust, but there are elements which can misutilise it. Hence so many rules.

Earlier my thought was that you place best and true information available on Wiki, and people will automatically add proper sources whenever it is available. This is not so true for controversial cases. Now I am treating all the cases as cotraversial and started editing accordingly. Mr. Anup, you will not find the case, you noticed earlier. I repeat, please don't blame me any further for violating Wiki rules knowingly, which is a unjust and a big insult for Wiki fan like me.

My problem is I can not accept that editor like user: summichum force their POV and make Wiki a platform to launch his agenda to openly marginalised complete Shia community(pl.see).

I am no one to be here for breaking Wiki rules, and my above lengthy explanation proves it. I least bother about Block, but more worried about Wiki reputation, may please cooperate.Md iet (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)--Md iet (talk) 04:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:TRUTH where the primacy of verifiability is explained. I know news outlets are not always to be trusted, but they're in principle better than stakeholders/claimants in a dispute.

Re: the rest of this, please take it to EdJohnston's talk page, or directly to a discussion/report board; I may have reverted too often or too fast, and if I did, I'll bear the consequences.

(But please indent your posts next time.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Asdklf;. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Adobe-Systems, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Asdklf; (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Asdklf;, I suppose this is an automated message, but anyway: I didn't click review, I hit CSD in Twinkle and that automatically reviews the page. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes we were almost simultaneously running duplicate processes. Asdklf; (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Adobe-Systems

Hi Qwertyus, thank you for your prompt reaction to the article Adobe-Systems. Although your reaction is legitimate, I wanted to let you know that the purpose of this new article is not exactly to duplicate the existing Adobe Systems article. On the contrary, the ultimate objective here is to propose a replacement in some way of the old one that has been around for more than 10 years and is in large part obsolete: several references and content are out of date. The new article is substantially updated and structured. Although I did consult another editor on this issue, I thought that the first strategy is to publish this new version and let the community decide what to do with it. If you know of better way to proceed with this operation, please let me know and I will be glad to go along with that. For now, I would appreciate that you lift your "speedy deletion" tag and propose an open debate on the article. Tell me what you think and I will be glad to listen to you. Thank you. Bostonscribe (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not how it works. If you want the old article out of the way, you can either edit it or post suggestions on the talk page; you can keep your alternative version in your own namespace for reference if you want. Forking an article because you don't disagree with the content is not done. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Honeywell CP-6, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages APL and RPG. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor Edit to Scikit-Learn

Hey, thanks for checking over my minor edit of the page scikit-learn. I think the sentence should indeed have "are" though. The sentence reads:

Among its users is Evernote, which uses the library to distinguish recipes from other user posts through a naive Bayes classifier,[6] and Mendeley, which builds recommender systems from scikit-learn's SGD regression algorithm.

or eliminating the adjective clauses, we have

Among its users is Evernote and Mendeley.

The subject of the sentence is "Evernote and Mendeley" hence requiring "are". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsterman222 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry, restored your edit! QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Shellshocked NOT Shellshock

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests#Uncontroversial_technical_requests — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edprevost (talk • contribs) 19:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Bir yıldız da sizin için!

	Hizmetli Yıldızı
	Thank you for your improving page of Art by Chance. I also want it to be without advertisement. Will you help me to correct the sentences Oguzhan620 (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist, I'll check it now and then. I don't know much about the topic, but I believe it meets WP:N so I'd rather see it improved than deleted. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Why did you remove Category:Trees (data structures) from HTree?

--151.75.18.239 (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Because the article is already in the category B-tree, which is a subcat of Category:Trees (data structures). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DATE (command)

Hello,

I hope I am not bothering you but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DATE (command) badly needs more input from the community. It has been relisted twice before and in spite of me having tried to publicize it before, is still at the risk of being closed without a consensus. The reason that I am calling you is that last time, I've been told to invite people that are more connected to the matter. I guess as a participant of Articles for deletion/Date (Unix), you clearly fit the bill.

Subject of the nomination is: "Wikipedia is not a manual and this article is written exactly like a man page."

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem, voiced my opinion. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi HJ Mitchell,

Thanks for the sign of trust, but can I get rid of this facility again? I just accidentally clicked it, and I'm afraid I'll do that again, because my diff view is now cluttered with five undo buttons: three clearly distinguishable ones from Twinkle, the standard one, and the one from rollback. Rollback has no benefit for me as I can perform the same action with Twinkle (which has the version that doesn't ask for confirmation colored red, so I won't click it by accident).

TIA, QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've removed it. You know where I am if you want it back in future. All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read and comment delete or keep Dao's theorem

Hello Qwertyus,

I see history of Euclidean geometry, I think You have knowledgeable classical geometry, please read pages Dao's theorem and comment anything You think. Delete or keep pages Dao's theorem. Thank to You very much.

Best regards

Sincerely --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Suffix automaton

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Suffix automaton, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: suffix automaton. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Nspluginwrapper

Hello Qwertyus. I reverted your proposed deletion of Nspluginwrapper—that article has been previously nominated for deletion, so it doesn't meet the criteria for WP:PROD. However, if you want to nominate it using the regular AfD process, I would be happy to participate in the discussion. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have checked the history. Re-nominated at AfD. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Jal Fresh

I'm kinda new at this thing and I couldn't find any actual sources for info about the station but thought it still deserved a page. Is there a recommended course of action for this scenario? Thanks! Coffeerain (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that if there are no sources, the information is not verifiable and the article can still get deleted. I simply refrain from writing articles in that case. Note that non-English sources are acceptable. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

True... Thanks for all your guidance! I'll see what I can do! Coffeerain (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
1,026		Dynamic programming (talk)						Add sources
183		List (abstract data type) (talk)						Add sources
34		Partial sorting (talk)						Add sources
401		Best, worst and average case (talk)						Add sources
390		Self-balancing binary search tree (talk)						Add sources
1,432		Tree traversal (talk)						Add sources
129		Generative model (talk)						Cleanup
541		Kernel density estimation (talk)						Cleanup
51		RedHack (talk)						Cleanup
667		Array data structure (talk)						Expand
152		Comparison of wiki hosting services (talk)						Expand
359		Memoization (talk)						Expand
42		Harmony search (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
155		Lempel–Ziv–Markov chain algorithm (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
35		Homesteading the Noosphere (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
789		Stack (abstract data type) (talk)						Merge
867		Distributed computing (talk)						Merge
847		Levenshtein distance (talk)						Merge
1,492		Base64 (talk)						Wikify
111		Lanczos algorithm (talk)						Wikify
271		Comparison of command shells (talk)						Wikify
17		IEC College of Engineering and Technology (talk)						Orphan
6		I.T.S. Engineering College (talk)						Orphan
2		Greater Noida Institute of Technology (talk)						Orphan
11		Recursive neural network (talk)						Stub
20		Cubesort (talk)						Stub
2		Lubotyń-Kolonia (talk)						Stub
1		Lubotyń-Morgi (talk)						Stub
2		Lubotyń-Włóki (talk)						Stub
14		Double-density compact disc (talk)						Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi how are you? It me. I have a request. Please restore "Hou Sui Underground Civilization (Hou Sui Chao)" article

Please restore "Hou Sui Underground Civilization (Hou Sui Chao)" article. The article erased by another admin. Altough, I work out the references quite a lot.

It is contained cites from legal chinese text and references. Will you review at least the article? It is different from another. Please read the original text at the ctext.org so you known that sources is legal and authentics. So the article can appear again. Thanks, this is my problems and world problems. "Hou Sui Underground Civilization (Hou Sui Chao)" is made from article wizard too.

Please help me restore the page. ADHZ07111989 (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)