Scythe33

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

Oleg Alexandrov 17:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

More welcome

Welcome also to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. Its talk page serves as a place where the mathematicians gather together and discuss math-related issues. There is also a list of participants to sign on. Enjoy Wiki-ing! Oleg Alexandrov 01:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Question

In coversine you added the text:

The derivative of the coversine is the versine

${\frac {d}{dx}}\mathrm {cvs} x=\mathrm {vrs} x\,$

and the integral is:

$\int \mathrm {cvs} (x)\,dx={\frac {\sin ^{2}{x}}{\mathrm {vrs} x}}+C$.

Now, from what I see there, one has

$\mathrm {cvs} x=1-\sin x$

and

versin(θ) = 1 − cos(θ).

But then, it is quite easy to see that both formulas you put are false. Am I misunderstanding something? Oleg Alexandrov 02:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I made a mistake. Thanks, it was late where I live. It should be

${\frac {d}{dx}}\mathrm {cvs} x=-\cos {x}$

$\int \mathrm {cvs} xdx=x+\cos {x}$

(i ignored the constants like they were multiplied).

Twelfth root of two

This looks a lot better with your edit. Thanks. hydnjo talk 19:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Brown numbers

In reference to 71, what are Brown numbers? What professional mathematical papers deal with the properties of Brown numbers? PrimeFan 23:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Brown numbers are a pair of numbers (a,b) such that:

$a^{2}=b!+1\,\!$

The only known pairs are (5,4) (11,5) (71,7). I got it off of a MathWorld article.

Excellent! That is a neat concept. We just need to find out how far Erdos's conjecture has been checked and we got enough meat for a stub.

So the Wikipedia article should perhaps be at [[Brown numbers]] rather than [[Brown number]]s. PrimeFan 21:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

See also sections

Hi, I just removed the see also section from Harmonic number and I suspect this will irritate you, so I bring this up now ... I would much prefer to have the "see also" section to list only those "related articles" that are not already somehow wikilinked in the main text of the article. This seems to be quite the opposite of how you tend to edit this section; thus, I invite you to discuss this further on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics so as to figure out what the appropriate policy should be. You can bring this up, or if you wish, ask me & I'll broach the subject. (Or we can let Oleg do this for us ...) linas 23:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Why me? :)

Actually, there is a policy that articles already linked from the text should not show up at see also. I can't find it right now, but I am sure it exists. Oleg Alexandrov 00:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Found!. Oleg Alexandrov 00:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Upload, series.

To upload an image, just go to the left hand column in click on "Upload file" (second link from the bottom). Be sure to study the tutorial on how to use images and/or experiment first on your homepage.

As to Trigamma function, you called a double integral a "series representation". That's wrong. A "series representation" for a function f(x) is something of the form

$f(x)=\sum _{n}a_{n}x^{n}\,$

An "integral representation" would be

$f(x)=\int g(x)dx\,$

and what you have in the trigamma article is a double integral representation. Also, to make double integrals more readable, please put the dx's on the left, not the right, like so:

$f(x)=\int _{0}^{x}dy\;g(y)\int _{0}^{y}dz\;h(z)$

Otherwise, even a minor slipup with the limits of the integration an make the expresion hard or impossible to read. linas 00:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

?!

I looked at the article and didn't see an integral being referred to as a series. I did say it could be derived from the series representation, however. I'll fix the integrals in about half an hour.

Oh, well, scanning teh text quickly, it seems to say "derived from the series rep" and the very next thing one sees is an integral.

Regarding images, I just noticed someone put up new "scalable vector graphics" images in Bessel function, which look rather pretty to me. If you do start adding images to these articles, I'd suggest/recommend using SVG graphics. (Clicking on the image in Bessel function will give the gnuplot markup needed to output SVG). I mean, I think it would be good to have some sort of basic graphs for the special functions, and most of the articles don't have these. linas 20:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Qua

Surprise! Qua is derived from the Latin word Qui, which means "who." Qua is used to mean "as" or "as being."Lestrade (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Well, I'll be a Canadian. Or was it a monkey's uncle? I never remember those sorts of things. Scythe33 (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sad...

I just want to say I'm disappointed that you are endorsing banning me and not Blaxthos. A scan through the archives shows he has been wikilawyering via the FAQ, insulting, and biting newcomers for quite a long time, especially those whose POV he disagrees with. Look at how he publicly accused and "bit" an editor who stood up to him in the complaint (see Urzatron's comment). You're failure to stop that behavior (which is habitual and continual at the FNC entry) is an implicit approval of it. While your words spread the blame, in endorsing only a block of me your actions are condoning the very serious violations that have been occurring at FNC since long before I showed up.

The Fox News entry had a heated atmosphere long before I showed up. I'm just the newcomer that bit back. Did I make mistakes? Yes. And I am learning. But Blaxthos has so much less of an excuse, as he has been around for so very much longer then I have. I really wish you would take more time to investigate what has been going on at FNC and at least deal with the situation more fairly. If no one does I guarantee Blaxthos will be emboldened by his ability to eliminate any new opposition at FNC, and the problems will continue long after I'm gone. Jsn9333 (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Concerning your reply on my talk page, I thank you for your fair-minded proposal, and I'm sorry it didn't come across that way to me when you first said it. I'm even more sorry it didn't come across that way to R. Baley, who decided to ignore the documented biting and insulting conduct of Blaxthos and ban me from the FNC entry, block me for asking him why on my own talk page because that constituted 'involved editors continuing the insults', yet then wink an eye as Blaxthos continued to complain about our history in other ANI threads. Jsn9333 (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI comments

Though this is a difficult subject, after some careful consideration I have decided to point out WP:ANI is not the place for adjudicating content disputes. In this post (and then again here you make your suggestion regarding the content of Fox News Channel. The noticeboard case and action are relevant to user conduct (hence incidents in the title), and has no authority regarding content, which is developed via consensus. Your thoughts on the user conduct actions are, of course, welcome on ANI; your thoughts on the content discussion are always welcome on the article talk page. However, by posting your opinion of the content on ANI you do a complete end run around the considerable (and solid) consensus of dozens editors and administrators who participated in the requests for comment that have lead to a consensus version; it could also give the appearance of a "judgment" (which some might argue carries more weight). I hope this doesn't come off as harsh, insulting, or arrogant -- it certainly is not intended to be. I encourage you to participate in the never-ending discussions on how to improve the article specifically, and Wikipedia in general, just be sure to do it in the right place. In any case, thank you for taking the time to respond at ANI.  :-) Happy editing! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Word changer

Please check your web browser because you probably have a browser extension that can damage articles.

• Word changer (information)
• Miami (article)
• diff ("Great Depression" is changed)

Happy editing! Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Scythe33. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Paid editing

About your note here and your edit here.

Please self revert that.

That behavior (I am not addressing the edit or the content), is unambiguously beyond the pale for a paid editor. There is a very bad track record of MDPI employees abusing WP, and one of them is standing at the edge of being indefinitely blocked.

If you don't understand how we expect paid editors to behave, I will explain. But the inappropriateness of you making that edit is not debatable. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

moved reply here, that was left on my talk page in this diff. Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not a paid editor. My job is not to edit Wikipedia articles. My job is to send emails to researchers asking them to peer-review articles being considered for publication. I chose to edit the Wikipedia article. :I'm quite aware of the WP:COI policy on this. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing in the rules that prevents me from leaving messages on an article talk page, so I have no idea why you would ask me to remove the note.

Because I am not a paid editor and it is not my job to edit Wikipedia, I have no idea what other MDPI employees have done on Wikipedia, although I do recognize at least one username in the edit history of Entropy (journal). If there is anything you want me to do in order to prevent abuse by other MDPI employees, tell me, because I'm not going to read your mind. If we can't reach agreement, there's always WP:COIN.Scythe33 (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Will you self revert, or not? I can assure you that you have no leg here under the COI guideline or and maybe half a leg under the PAID policy. I recommend that you do self-revert, and then allow me to explain how we manage COI here in WP. There is no need for dramaboards. Please reply here to keep the discussion in one place, instead of fragmented. Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC) (nuance Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC))

If you want to explain why I'm in violation of WP:PAID, please go ahead. What you're saying is not consistent with the information on the actual COI policy page, so I'm not going to believe you without additional information. It's also clear that you have your own history with MDPI, so of course I would prefer to get an opinion from a third-party by contacting WP:COIN if we cannot come to an agreement, here. That's not appealing to "dramaboards", it's just seeking fairness. I know I rank low on the editing totem-pole, and I'm not fond of being pushed around by people who refuse to explain themselves. Scythe33 (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

You are a paid employee of the company. We can dance around the head of a pin as to whether you are technically "paid to edit" - at COIN probably half the people when asked would say "yes" and other half would say "no" and everyone would agree that it is a waste of time. You made an edit removing negative content about the company you work for (that is all I will say about the content). Your conflict of interest is absolutely unambiguous' and the behavior was inappropriate.

The appropriate thing to do is use the {{request edit}} template and request others to make the edit.

You have no leg here with regard to your behavior. You might be able to persuade others that the edit is appropriate. That is a different question altogether. Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the removal of the negative information. I kept the sentence about Entropy's response to the controversy, as it is totally quotidian. I won't make further edits to MDPI-related articles, although I may suggest other changes in the future. Scythe33 (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for mostly self-reverting. As you noted, you left some. I really don't get this. When you behave this way, it reflects not only badly on you (your reputation here in WP) but on the reputation of MDPI, which is already horrible here in WP via the behavior of other people who work for the company.

But I do appreciate your self-reverting. I apologize that I was overly harsh (I was) but I have really had it with people from MDPI doing this kind of stuff and I let that drive my behavior, which I shouldn't have. And I thank you now (which I never did, and should have) for disclosing that you work for them. Jytdog (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Scythe33. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)