User talk:JMP EAX
|
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, JMP EAX, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome!
JMP EAX, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi JMP EAX! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
The definition from the reference used differentiates between vertices and nodes. In that ref a leaf is a vertex, but not a node. But I agree with you that the article is of questionable use. Furthermore, the only ref used does not seem to be a WP:RS. It appears to be an excerpt from an unidentified prof's lecture notes. I would support putting this articl eup for deletion. Meters (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 4
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Device independent file format, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages PNG and Ubuntu. 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) 09:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Nice name
[edit]Someone's obviously coded in Assembly :) Kosh Vorlon 16:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
{{Duplication}}
[edit]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
-- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Hacker News
[edit]Thanks for inserting the Practices section. I have updated the talk page although my formatting is terrible. Never edited a wiki before! Thanks again. Steve.
94.15.82.228 (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations!
[edit]I'm awarding you
|
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
| in recognition of your contributions at Hacker News. Thanks! betafive 06:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification for August 11
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
- Subpixel rendering
- added a link pointing to Steve Gibson
- Volume ray casting
- added a link pointing to Ray tracing
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
August 2014
[edit]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Subpixel rendering may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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:
- <!--TODO: cover IBM's U.S. Patent #5341153] — Filed: 1988-06-13, "Method of and apparatus for displaying a multicolour image" -->
- fontcolor|green|G}}{{fontcolor|red|R}} striped panels, but the increased resolution compensates it (in addition, their effective visible colour is reduced by the presence of "colour-neutral" white
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Generalized context-free grammar may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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:
- LCFRS are weakly equivalent to (set-local) ''multicomponent'' TAGs ([MCTAG]]s) and also with [[multiple context-free grammar]] (MCFGs [http://www.labri.fr/perso/salvati/
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Titstare is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titstare until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates
[edit]Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Please don't use that template. It needs user:Citation bot to fill in the blanks, but that bot is presently broken. The template is a bad idea anyhow. Citing just a number without other information is highly error prone. Just consider what happens if a single digit is wrong: you wind up citing the wrong source entirely. If you must use it, please add at least the title of the cited article using the |title= parameter. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Copy-paste of the doi is not error prone. And I click on the resulting doi link to check out where it goes; it takes less time than typing a template, especially if you use tabbed browsing. The WMF is unwilling to make editing easier (for me), so they'll have to live with how I edit. JMP EAX (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have now "semi-manually" expanded some of these using the Google Chrome extension for DOIs; but this tool doesn't use Wikipedia citation templates. (It supports 1000+ citations styles, but not Wikipedia's. I suppose I/someone could add that feature, but really the WMF should provide tools like this.) I'll get to all of those cite-dois I've added eventually, because the bot looks like it's not going to get fixed. JMP EAX (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Collegial editing
[edit]This edit is not a good example of collegial editing. The summary is rude and fails to explain the reasons for the (major) changes. Since the edit removes more than one item of sourced material and also removes sources on other statements, some kind of reasoned explanation is necessary. Reverting edits by another editor simply because you don't like them and without explanation could be considered disruptive. Please follow WP:BRD and discuss your reasons at the [[Talk:Semiring|article talk page]. Deltahedron (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have discussed them. You just refuse to hear. JMP EAX (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- That is not correct. I asked a number of highly specific questions [1],[2] which you refused to answer in any detail. Your answer to those was "I've already explained above why I've reverted you" referring to the curt "it completely messed up the logic of the presentation, giving overpowered examples for trivial notions like for simply adding a unary operation" which is hardly a discussion and certainly not an answer to the question. Please be careful to be accurate. Deltahedron (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is not exactly helpful either. However, let me note that your frustration probably stems from a number of sources. Firstly, we all have different styles and can all bring frsh material to an article. If you can accomodate yourself to the notion that this is an encyclopaedia, which anyone can edit, and where divergent points of view can be discussed, then things will go more smoothly. Secondly, whatever your views about other editors, it is almost never helpful to express them on an article talk page. If you can articulate your differences of opinion in terms of specific and cogent reasons, related to Wikipedia policy, why certain material should or should not be in an article, or why a certain development of the subject is or is not appropriate, then it is possible to have a fruitful discussion. It is rarely helpful to answer detailed and specific questions with the answer "I've already explained" when you patently have not. Thirdly, as you sourself pointed out, this is not a game played to win. Success is having a comprehensive, comprehensible, factual, reliable, useful article. By all means take a break from editing the article in question and reflect on how you might have handled the situation better. Sorting out the rational/regular/recognisable articles is a challenging undertaking, perhaps more than you immediately realise, as I pointed out [3], and I wish you every success with it. Deltahedron (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Please stop posting to my talk page about this issue. Like I said on the article talk page, you can write whatever you want about it in Wikipedia; I don't care anymore. Your level of clue on this topic is clear to me but since my time is more valuable than giving free tutoring on the interwebz to annoying and clueless people... maybe you should actually read the references you are/were citing [4]. And this is not a page number. But this is. JMP EAX (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Composite Bézier curve
[edit]I have this article on my watchlist but haven't edited it in a while (or at all? I don't remember why it's on my watchlist). I just wanted to thank you for the work you've been doing to improve it. I'd join in but my domain specific expertise has shrunk considerably since I've been out of school. Regardless, good job. Protonk (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- It was a quick hack so it's probably missing some finer points, but thanks for vote of confidence! The old article had gotten hopelessly confused, although the terminological confusion in the sources (under the old name which is now a dab) was partially to blame... I need to format things a bit there, add more internal links etc. By the way, I got to it because I wanted to add some advanced, GPU-related material to vector graphics. But that article lacks the basic model. So I couldn't even say/find what a stroke is. That's how I got to improving a little bit parallel curve. And then I realized that the article were polybezier went was @#$@#... I actually crashed my Google Chrome a couple of time this because I had too many tabs open with all this stuff (even with 16GB of RAM, heh). JMP EAX (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 21
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited De Morgan algebra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antonio Monteiro. 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, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case
[edit]You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
August 2014
[edit]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to TeX does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, even if it is very brief, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.
The edit summary appears in:
- User contributions
- Recent changes
- Watchlists
- Revision differences
- IRC channels
- Related changes
- New pages list and
- Article editing history
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Oneiros (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- If you insist I'll use "." or "+" as an edit summary next time. The effort of writing an edit summary for a self-explanatory but short edit outweighs the benefit in my book. I don't maintain a watchlist though. If you like playing wikipolice, that's your problem not mine. JMP EAX (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm not even going to do that. If you care about curating Wikipedia in this way, ask the WMF to provide better software for such purpose, like for example showing snippets of short diffs in the watch/change list. I don't see why I should supplant such a feature, which is easily achievable in software, with my manual labor. JMP EAX (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- At least for some kind of changes, like the creation of a new page, reasonable edit summaries are auto-generated. I don't see why this can't be extended to other types of addition edits. JMP EAX (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Cross-serial dependency: Revision
[edit]Before I start, I'd like you to know that I don't edit Wikipedia often, so if I'm doing something stupid please tell me!
About your edit summary, 'is this the def or is a sub-class? are the commas essential or not?' I created the article to talk about "cross-serial dependencies" (plural) as that's the phrase which comes up in publications. Indeed, it doesn't make sense to talk about a solitary cross-serial dependency seeing as the dependency lines can only cross in a sentence with at least two relations. (That said, you can still talk about an individual crossing relation from a series of dependent constituents.)
Back to the point! The reason I titled the page in the singular is because I thought it's poor form to give an article a plural title, though your edit makes me unsure about that decision. Think I should change it? - Christian Nassif-Haynes (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- The article does not have a clear definition of the topic, and I don't (yet) know how to fix it myself or I would have done it already. The plural vs. singular issue in the title is less of a concern. JMP EAX (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- In particular, linking to [[Dependency_grammar#Types_of_dependencies|dependency relation]] doesn't help at all, because that other article is even more confusing, speaking of many kinds of dependencies. And I have no idea which one of those applies to the cross-serial ones. JMP EAX (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think that's the main problem with the article: it lacks a clear definition of a dependency relation. I didn't want to define it there because the phrase had already been defined in other articles, but in some ways poorly, as you pointed out.
- To be honest I'm not sure what kind of dependency relations apply to cross-serial ones. I've never read a publication saying "cross-serial dependencies are exclusively syntactic," for example. Then again, I've never read one talking about prosodic or morphological dependencies. It's conceivable that someone would though, so I didn't want to restrict the definition to one kind.
- Now I've said all that, it seem like the best thing to do would be to:
- Change the article's title to plural (making sure "Cross-serial dependency" has a link there)
- Make sure there's a clear definition of dependency relations in the "Dependency grammar" article
- Give an example of, say, syntactic dependencies, in the "Cross-serial dependency" article to help make the definition concrete, but say that other kinds of relations could equally apply. (I hope I'll be able to find a reference for this...)
- I don't know when I'll have the time to do all of this though. I'm up to my armpits in uni work. - Christian Nassif-Haynes (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 31
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quasiregular element, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fixed point. 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) 09:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Case Opened: Banning Policy
[edit]You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 12:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 7
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pseudocomplement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lattice. 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) 09:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 17, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 14:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, you may have missed my reply at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_4#Category:Rendering_APIs. which is still open. Please let me know if you don't see what I'm getting at. – Fayenatic London 13:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
