User talk:Maxal

I will write to you on Talk:Binomial coefficient. Oleg Alexandrov 22:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wrote more there. Oleg Alexandrov 23:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And I wrote more... Oleg Alexandrov 23:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we differ in nothing but whether the emphasis should be on more elementary stuff first, or whether one should go general fully upfront. I suggest we let this cool down a bit.

Once again, welcome aboard. You might consider putting Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics on your watchlist, as it is there where the math people talk all kinds of issues related to math on Wikipedia. There is also a list of participants to sign on. Some good reading is Wikipedia:How to write a Wikipedia article on Mathematics — the product of more than three years of collaborative thinking. Hope you like it here — Oleg Alexandrov 00:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On February 1 you mentioned on the talk page that you would create a Spanish-language stub. Did you ever do that, and if so, could you by any chance add the link to the Spanish page, please? --N Shar (talk · contribs) 02:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I did around that time (and moved related links there) but it was then removed by some Spanish user. Check up the history log. Maxal (talk) 06:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why the need to delete the proof of (n+1 over k+1) = (n over k) + (n over k+1)? This particular expression is not mentioned in the Pascal's rule article, the proof mentioned there is (n over k) = (n-1 over k) + (n-1 over k-1). So I cannot se why it really is neccesary to delete this part? Emul0c (talk) 10:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(n+1 over k+1) = (n over k) + (n over k+1) and (n over k) = (n-1 over k) + (n-1 over k-1) is exactly the same identity with just shifted (increased/decreased by 1) indices. As of deleting the part of binomial coefficient article - there are two reasons: 1) This proof (actually, even a couple of proofs) of the Pascal's rule is given in the Pascal's rule article, there is no need to repeat it/them in binomial coefficient - it's enough just to point out that the main article on this topic is the Pascal's rule one. 2) The binomial coefficient article is already too heavy to contain excessive material. Maxal (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in improving wikipedia articles. Please keep in mind that wikipedia is encyclopedia, not a web directory. Adding external links to someone's individual webpages is generally discouraged, unless the person in question is a known expert in the area. Twri (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, it makes sense. Maxal (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Graph isomorphism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Even if your edits were otherwise acceptable, you cannot restore them that many times. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop reverting my changes without explanation. Apply the three-revert rule to yourself. Maxal (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The count of reverts is:

1. User:Maxal: 5 or 6
2. User:Arthur Rubin: 3
3. User:SemBubenny: 1
4. User:Twri: 1
5. User:David Eppstein: 1

I won't revert again, but it would appreciated if you would self-revert your last revert, as you have now been warned that you were already in violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

My reverts were about different issues (and three of them are caused by you!). One issue was resolved, thanks to Twri, and should not be counted towards recent reverts. Maxal (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You may have a legitimate concern, but you still need to discuss it, because others clearly disagree and will not allow you to add the link unilaterally. You need to argue for its inclusion on the talk page. Dcoetzee 23:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The explanations first should have came from those who delete information, disregarding in a single mouse click much more significant efforts spent for collecting, formatting and bringing in this information. Anyway, I've started a discussion in Talk:Graph isomorphism#Software review. Maxal (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually that's not how it works - see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If someone disagrees with your change, it's always best to discuss it, unless they were very clearly mistaken. Dcoetzee 02:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm responding to a report at WP:AN3 regarding your edit warring. In your favour I see that you have not reverted since the 3RR warning, and have taken the issue to the talk page. You should note that WP:3RR is not an entitlement, and editors may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically break 3RR. Note also that it does not matter if the reverts are of different material. If you continue edit warring on this, you will certainly be blocked. Kevin (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wieferich prime. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And again you're the one who is opposing in the edit war and issuing me a 3RR warning. I should be doing the same for you... Maxal (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding my Smith septuple to Smith number. I didn't want to do it myself for conflict of interest reasons but had considered to suggest it. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Maxal (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you have edited some references in coin problem to use the {{cite ...}} template.I will not revert your edits, but please note that it was not only a waste of your time, but actually a significant *dis*improvement, as the reference became harder to read --- both in the wikisource and in the reader's view. The compact citation format 37(10):1-23 was invented by technical journal publishers *to save paper*. The extended format "volume 37, issue 10, pages 1-23" of the original citations is more suited to the medium and readership of Wikipedia. There are several other disadvantages of the cite templates, but that will do for now.
Like many (too many) other features in Wikipedia, the cite templates were created by a handful of enthusiastic editors without a clear analysis of cost/benefits, and posted by them as if they were a "consensus" --- which they most emphatically are *not*. Then editors started using them in the mistaken impression that they are somehow good for Wikipedia --- which they most emphatically are *not*. I used to do that myself until I realized the sheer idiocy of the templaets and what "consensus" usually means in the Wikipedia guidelines.
So my advice is that you format the references by hand and forget the "cite" templates. It will save you a lot of time and grief, and you will get better-looking refs. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally I see no problems with cite template format. But if you think it needs to be improved, please raise this question in Template talk:Cite journal. Maxal (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Science5807.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

OK. Then I can safely delete this cryptic impersonating comment. Maxal (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm recommending that the article on Bracelet (combinatorics) be merged into Necklace (combinatorics).

I saw that you had previously edited one (or both) of these article. You're invited to participate in the discussion here: Talk:Necklace (combinatorics).

Thanks, Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 15:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.

If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.

To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.

The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• OK. Thanks! Maxal (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi maxal. I'm glad to see you helping improve the MRB constant article. You asked about the irrationality of the constant. That got me thinking and I wrote Steven Finch ( Clay Mathematics Institute Book Fellow and an expert on rationality and transcendence of constants), and he wrote me back with the following suggestion:

>Hi,
>Such proofs can be extremely difficult. Recall, for example,
>that the irrationality of the Euler-Mascheroni constant remains
>an open problem! I think you should say likewise for MRB,
>unless someone has actually written down a rigorous proof.
>Steve

Perhaps someone can explain that, somehow, in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marburns (talk • contribs) 19:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• If irrationality is not proved, it has to be stated as such. It is at least misleading to call a number irrational if its irrationality is not proved. Maxal (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Per WP:AB, in clear-cut case, I corrected the statement concerning irrationality.Marvin Ray Burns (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

From your edit summary I take it that you thought the references used in saying the MRB constant has been put in tables at such and such place are not widely accepted in a scholarly atmosphere. However, I think they are more like original source references and are therefore useful. They aren’t merely telling you that someone in authority said the constant was used in those tables, but rather one can check for him or herself that it was in there. Furthermore, those were not just tables that were copies of Wikipedia’s table (like there are many of now) but they were developed before the MRB constant was put on Wikipedia and thus show how the knowledge of the MRB constant was passed around before it was on Wiki. In fact, at my personal website I have a strong Iranian following from the Iranian table. I’m not saying you really should restore those lines that you deleted; I’m only asking that you consider either doing that or perhaps adding a better clause to the article to convey the same information. Best wishes, Marvin Ray Burns (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• First, those tables are not WP:reliable sources. Second, it is not notable whether the constant is mentioned there. Maxal (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)