User talk:Mdnahas

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Binary tree was changed by Mdnahas (u) (t) deleting 15942 characters on 2009-12-30T22:24:21+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. When you split the "binary tree" article, you removed all the references and a fair amount of the content. The definitions, for instance, took a few years to settle. I would suggest that splits should start by making sure all the original content is somewhere, and then go with rewriting. That way the text is in the history of the new articles, too. Gimmetrow 15:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello.

Please notice my recent edits to history of type theory. In particular

• In ranges of years and ranges of pages and the like, one uses an en-dash rather than a hyphen, thus

right: 1948–1973

wrong: 1948-1973

right: pages 304–421

wrong: pages 304-421

• Likewise in things like Haskell–Curry, where the dash means "and", one uses an en-dash rather than a hyphen.
• Use lower-case initials in section headings except that the first letter in the heading is capital (unless there's some special reason to use lower case) and things like people's names, etc. bear a capital initial.

These things are codified in WP:MOS. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2013 (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) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Link to differences in before and after your revision:

finite field - error correction code

"The finite field almost always has characteristic of 2, since computer data is stored in binary" - true, with the main exception PDF417 bar code which uses GF(929), but GF(929) is used in the Wiki Reed Solomon examples. It might be worth noting in one of the articles that usage of GF(929) is not that common.

"Some CPUs have special instructions to perform operations on these finite fields." - I'm only aware of carryless multiply such as PCLMULQDQ xmm instruction on X86, which can be used for carryless modulo, useful for CRC as well as finite fields. A % B implemented as C = 2^64 / B (table lookup), Q = (A*C)>>64, result = A XOR (Q*B). There is also PSHUFB xmm instruction, which can be used for a generic parallel table lookup operation, using 4 bit indexes. Splitting an 8 bit byte into two 4 bit parts would allow for a fast GF(2^8) multiply of an array of bytes by a single byte, useful for erasure codes that operate on blocks of data, but also for any type of parallel table lookup for an array of bytes and a single byte. The actual table lookup would be indexed by the single byte.

Rcgldr (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Mdnahas

Thank you for creating Matching logic.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mdnahas. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Quantity controls, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mdnahas. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Quantity controls".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Liz can you tell me what the heck is going on? I still have no idea why this page never made it onto the "mainspace". Wikipedia has got all these new processes and ruling and no good introduction to how to navigate them. (That we're having this conversation on my "User talk" page is confusing! Why is that the place??)

I'm an expert and edited Wikipedia for years. That this contribution didn't get to readers is frustrating. I feel like Wikipedia is putting up roadblocks rather than helping me. Mdnahas (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mdnahas. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Quantity controls".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Somepinkdude was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Random Group Formation Distribution and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Somepinkdude (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Mdnahas! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Somepinkdude (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

This is the second new article that has been declined. I don't consider this "disappointing", I consider it aggravating. I am not a "new editor", I have 500+ edits and have been doing this for years if not a decade. I'm an expert and I consider this a noteworthy, if minor, development. It is a maximum entropy probability distribution and the Wikipedian style is for each distribution to have its own page, not have a section on the Maximum entropy probability distribution.

I'm pissed. My previous page, on Quantity Controls in economics (which is the analog of Price controls) was also "declined", by which I mean my work was deleted.

I'm angry. Your page doesn't list you as an expert. The policy seems to be delete and not trying to add information to Wikipedia. Mdnahas (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I'm taking a look into this, and I think I see where the mistake was made re "Quantity controls", at least.

If you use the "create an article via the drafting mechanism" process — which you, as an experienced editor, do not actually need to do — then the page you created is subject to all the conditions of other drafts. Which include "if you leave it untouched for 6 months, it's subject to procedural deletion". Such pages can be restored upon request, but then they're eligible for deletion after another 6 months left untouched.

The solution is to just go ahead and submit them the regular way. Go here (yes, it's a redlink, that's not a mistake), and instead of clicking the part about the article wizard, go with the part that says "Start the article". DS (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I had a finished version of Quantity Controls. It was very simple. It was a foundation for others to build on. And it got declined and then, eventually, deleted. It wasn't a issue of how it was created. It was that some non-expert bureaucrat came in and said "this isn't for wikipedia". Mdnahas (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

To be very clear: that's not what happened. I examined the deleted edits (admins can read that content). You clicked 'publish' to save it to our servers, but did not submit it for review-and-approval.

Because nobody reviewed it, nobody declined it.

And then after 6 months untouched, it was deleted because it had gone 6 months untouched.

I understand that the multi-step process can be confusing; you're not the first one to get mixed up this way.

Since the page has been restored, you can check the page history yourself.

Good luck; I look forward to reading more of your work. DS (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mdnahas Right, you need to submit the article to be reviewed. It has not been submitted for review yet. I see from earlier in this talk page that you were annoyed, back in 2023, that this same article was never put into mainspace.

Drafts are not automatically put into mainspace. Confusingly, the "publish" button does not send a draft to mainspace; it only saves the draft (as a draft). I predict that back in 2023, you also didn't submit the draft for review. Then you apparently didn't see the 5-month warning on this page, saying that that (unsubmitted) draft would be deleted in one more month if it wasn't edited or submitted for review. I can see how this can be confusing.

I hope you get all of the inline references that are needed, and you can then submit the article. It will then be accepted for publication, declined with suggestions for improvement, or (rarely) rejected as entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia. Good luck. David10244 (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

See WP:EXPERT which says "Expert editors can be very valuable contributors to Wikipedia, but they sometimes have a difficult time realizing that Wikipedia is a different environment from scholarly and scientific publishing." Theroadislong (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Did you think this would make me less angry?! Read my reply. I have 500+ edits on Wikipedia. Your copy-and-paste reply does not help. It makes me feel like I'm besieged by bureaucrats who only quote regulations. Mdnahas (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Does it help if I give you an individual response? DS (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

500+ edits is a VERY small number of edits, I think you need to gain more experience of how Wikipedia works and stop attacking other users. Theroadislong (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

500+ edits puts me in the top 1% of all editors. Wikipedia:Wikipedians

I've spent my time learning Computer Science, Math, and Economics. I just want to add my knowledge. I was able to do it in the past. That has gotten harder to do and I'm frustrated. Your reply did not help me and I'm sorry if I was rude to you. I'm most mad about the design of this system, which focuses on denial and deletion rather than fixing and improving. We have a bunch of volunteers here arguing over rules. If a fraction of that effort was spent fixing my changes, we'd have my knowledge in Wikipedia by now. And we'd all be much happier. Mdnahas (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

As odd as this may seem, Wikipedia is not really a place to add your knowledge. It is a place where editors who are good at finding reliable, independent, published sources will spend the time to summarize what those sources say. Being a subject matter expert can help find good published sources, but everything in Wikipedia comes (or should) come from a secondary source; even primary sources don't make good references at WP. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. David10244 (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Followup: you say that in the past, you were able to add your knowledge to WP. In the past, reviewers did not always adhere to the "sourcing" guidelines as strictly as they do now. And the guidelines have probably gotten stricter over the years, as opposed to the early years when the greatest need was to "get more articles". Currently, WP needs "good, well-referenced" articles--and a lot of existing articles need to be improved with better references.

If you can accept the current requirements, your efforts here will e welcomed, and you will be far less frustrated. David10244 (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

See my earlier comment: "It makes me feel like I'm besieged by bureaucrats who only quote regulations." Mdnahas (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Mdnahas. I'm sorry that your experience with Wikipedia recently has been less than ideal. I noticed you were upset that Draft:Quantity controls was deleted, so I requested undeletion for you. Looking at the article now, I can tell you that it needs more inline citations - before it should be published to "mainspace", each paragraph should have corresponding inline citations. At one time, general references were much more accepted on Wikipedia, but this is no longer the case.

As a subject matter expert, your contributions are very valuable to Wikipedia, but editing here is much different than contributing to an academic journal - I looked up the name on your userpage, and it's very clear that you know far more about all of this than I do, and likely many of the people replying to you, but we cannot rely solely on your credentials - the more you can "beef up" your first revision with sources, the better. Once you've added more citations to the Quantity controls article, there is no need for you to submit the article for review, you may move it yourself. See WP:MOVE for more details. If you're on PC, look at the sidebar on the right, and you'll see "Move". You should be able to figure it out from there.

Finally, you may be able to find editors who have a better understanding of your field of expertise over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and associated projects. I can think of a few editors in particular who are quite knowledgeable in the field if you'd like me to send them your way. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out and I'll do my best to assist. All the best, MediaKyle (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort. I'm too disheartened to figure out the draft system and get Quantity Controls to the quality level you describe.

I created the page so that people have something to build on. I expected other volunteers to improve it. It wasn't supposed to be perfect. It was something, which is better than nothing.

It's clear that someone at Wikipedia has decided that nothing is better than something. If you can tell me who decided that, I'll be glad to rant at them.

I may add the Random Group Formation Distribution to the Maximum Entropy Distribution page. I will want to find it later and that's where I'll look. But I now anticipate another editor to deleting it because it doesn't follow the format of the other distributions because it doesn't have its own page... Mdnahas (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Other editors are not likely to stumble across something that's in draft space, unfortunately. MediaKyle's suggestion us a good one, to let others know about your draft, and that you are inviting them to help improve it. David10244 (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)