User talk:Mark viking/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Mark viking, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Deltahedron (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind welcome, Deltahedron! Mark viking (talk) 07:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse

Hi there, Mark! I've provided some answers for you at the Teahouse page. Glad you had a chance to stop by and visit with us. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Bloomerang

Hi Mark. As the article in question was clearly spam / advertising, it qualifies for speedy deletion and therefore there is no need for a deletion discussion. Also, the user who originally added the AfD notice (Scientific Alan 2) immediately undid his revision and reinstated the speedy deletion template. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 16:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The Complexity of Songs

Thanks for the hint that the article may be further expanded. But what is your vote? - Altenmann >t 20:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Just added it, thanks for the heads up! Mark viking (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Ocular citrosis

Purely for your information, as you were peripherally involved; this disease does NOT exist and I have deleted the article as a hoax. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I concur with your decision. Mark viking (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

quasar

Hi ,,quick question about the large quasar cluster 1/11/13, due to its enormous size, the fact that it works contrary to what science says should exist,,,,,,,,,,could it theoretically be we are looking at something near the center of the universe?,,,,..sorry if the question sounds stupid but i thought id throw it out there,,,,,,,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ozzie10aaaa, I'm no expert, but as I understand it, the quasar cluster is notable because it is so large that the time for light to travel from one end of the cluster to the other is longer than the duration of the epoch in which most quasars were created. So there could be no possible signals (like shock waves) that could organize such a large structure in the time available. While the big bang doesn't have a notion of a spatial center of the universe, there may be something special about this area of space, or the matter contained in it. Time will tell as astronomers learn more. Mark viking (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

thank you for your answer, i find it interesting,,,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion sorting

Hi Mark, when delsorting an AfD there are two steps, you cared out step 2 on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nexus (software) adding the Sceince delsort tag. But you forgot step 1 added the AfD to Science delsort page, I have completed the delsort on your behalf. Please remember to complete both steps in the future. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and correction. I was under the mistaken impression that step 2 automatically executed step 1; I'll perform both steps next time. By the way, I admire all your work on deletion sorting--being able to scan categories for articles I might have missed is a great boon. Regards, Mark viking (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been busy there is quite a lot of AfDs lately. No unfortunately adding the tag doesn't automatically add it to the relating delsort page, I wish it did, seems to be a common misconception. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Nice work in finding sources for the Tygon tubing article, which you posted at the article's current AfD discussion. This will likely serve for this topic to be retained in the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

My first barnstar--thank you very much! Mark viking (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Hypertopology, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for reviewing and moving my article, Excirial! Mark viking (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia, during AfD

Hi. You recently merged some text from OMAPI to DHCPD during WP:Articles for deletion/OMAPI.

• WP:Copying within Wikipedia: I see that you edited the text a little, so it wasn't entirely a copy. You mentioned OMAPI in your edit summary, which is a good start, but wikilinking [[OMAPI]] would be better. I placed {{Copied}} templates on the talk pages.
• WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion: This doesn't seem to be an issue in that AfD – the article might even be kept – but merging during an active AfD can cause problems such as friction with other participants.

Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Flatscan -- Thanks for the advice. I was trying to be helpful, but I'll hold off from any merging during an AfD in the future. Should I revert my edits in DHCPD? Mark viking (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. No, they're fine, as I don't see any objections. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for your efforts to rework Urban Reforestation! Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the beer, DA Sonnenfeld! Kind regards, Mark viking (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouraging me and I will improve the article "Kahler manifold.".--Enyokoyama (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome, Enyokoyama. I look forward to your contributions. --Mark viking (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Advanced Global Trading

Thanks for fixing this, which I had tagged for speedy. I removed the speedy tag, but you could have done it yourself if you thought you had addressed the issue. According to WP:CSD, it does not take an admin. Anyone can do it except the original author. (In fact, anyone else can remove it even if they do not address the issue, though that normally leads directly to AfD. You can reasonably remove a tag if you think there ought to be an AfD discussion, whether or not you'll support the article at the AfD) DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize I could remove CSD tags as a non-admin; thanks for cluing me in! Regards, --Mark viking (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Mark viking. You have new messages at Theopolisme's talk page.
Message added by Theopolisme at 12:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CodeForge

Very appreciative of your help with NickB. He added a lot of blatantly promotional content with no sources, but I don't think he intended to. I am a PR person too, and I've been there. I think his sourcing was valuable and I see him being a constructive participant in the future. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 02:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. And you did a fine job of putting him on the right track. I agree that he has the potential to be a good editor and having someone knowledgeable about this fast moving field is valuable for Wikipedia, too. Regards, --Mark viking (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

response to copyvio query

I answered at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. -Arch dude (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of article about FocalScope - recognised for changing the way emails are being handled

Hi Mark,

I've observed some of the contributions you've done and I can tell that you're a quite experienced editor here. Have you reviewed the article FocalScope Email Ticketing Solution? It's a Singaporean product which was developed in 2005. It has since then been recognised for "changing the ways emails are being handled" and is being deployed by global companies such SingTel, American Express, DHL and Radisson Hotel to deliver their customer support. It's however up for discussion, you might find it interesting to participate. Looking at its users and recognition in media for its features, I would definitely say that it's a notable product. Maybe it needs to come across stronger in the article/discussion? Samira Holma (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Topological partition

This not related to partition topology. Deltahedron (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Module Marketplace

Hey there - I agree with your assessment at Talk:Module Marketplace, and removed the CSD tag from the article. It could use some help - not sure if the topic interests you or not (or even if you are watching the article), but it's likely that someone may still nominate it for deletion without some cleanup. Help yourself to it! Thanks for your contributions - Keeper | 76 18:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the CSD. I agree, while it failed A7, there are still concerns with notability and promotional language in the article. I'm no expert, but will see what I can do. --Mark viking (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Tracx

Hi Mark. You voted in the AfD discussion on Tracx a while back, mentioning that they could be notable eventually, but weren't at the time. I added a couple sources at User:CorporateM/Tracx, including a new WSJ piece[1], which says "But there’s a new player that has been attracting notice" regarding Tracx. I was wondering if you felt they were getting closer. I have a friend that works in their marketing department and offered to help, but only if an impartial editor feels it meets WP:CORP of course. CorporateM (Talk) 20:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi CorporateM. I think your version of the article looks good, and seems non-promotional, at least to me. I agree that the WSJ piece looks like an independent reliable source with enough depth to be counted toward notability for the company. The other sources are more problematic. The CMSwire ref looks like a press release. imediaconnection.com is a blog that companies can self-nominate for inclusion. digitaltrends.com may be independent, but it may just be a trade--we give you a mention in an article if you give us a free infographic--hard to say. The TechCrunch ref looks like a lightly edited press release. The MediaPost article looks to have some independent writing in it, but a skeptical editor editor could dismiss it based on some of the promotional prose. The reference I mentioned in the AfD looks to have a short mention of Tracx and perhaps a table involving them, but scraps Google gives me are not enough to allow me to say "in-depth".

The one solid WSJ reference, the SXSW reference, the book reference, and maybe the MediaPost reference may be enough for marginal notability at this point. But given my experience with AfD, that may not be enough the third time around. The article was CSD'd for blatant promotion in 2010 and AfD'd recently for lack of notability. I am pretty sure that some editors, seeing this pop up again on their watchlists, would take a highly critical look at what has changed, and may not find it enough. Probably the best thing your friend could do for notability would be to get another independent article or two out there. They don't have to be WSJ. I'd think that trade mags like Advertising Age would be interested in these sorts of analytics, Wired would love the "we're processing a terabyte per second" angle and O'Reilly Strata is all about Big Data these days. --Mark viking (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand, because CMSwire, imediaconnect and TechCrunch are all bylined by independent authors and journalists and as far as I can tell do not duplicate any press release content. But I've seen plenty of times just how distorted ones view can be when they have a COI. I'll let her know they need a couple more to make a solid case. CorporateM (Talk) 14:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh - I didn't notice it was already deleted in 2010 until you pointed it out. My friend just got hired there a few months ago. CorporateM (Talk) 14:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Admittedly, whether I considered articles above to look like press releases was an intentionally skeptical judgement call on my part, rather than hard evidence of a press release duplication. WP:CORPDEPTH emphasizes that sources need to be independent. It is not fair, but if source seems to use promotional language about the company, a lot of editors will conclude that the source is not independent. In the Dec 2012 AfD, only the SXSW reference was considered independent by DGG and other editors, and I felt the need to find other references to save the article because I didn't have hard evidence that the existing refs were independent. I personally tend to assume good faith in real life, too, but I've been criticized as too naive for this attitude in AfDs for company articles. The above was my best guess as to how another Tracx AfD today would play out. --Mark viking (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Awww yes. DGG and I have both made our arguments on this in a general way. Since I have a PR background, I know that almost all media coverage on a company has PR involvement and that journalists are often axe-grinders or fanboys, just like Wikipedians. And, as it is on Wikipedia, journalists often sound similar to PR copy if they are a fan. Anyways, I don't mean to argue the case, just making small-talk. Thanks for taking the time to offer feedback. CorporateM (Talk) 21:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Biophoton

Hi Mark viking, agree with your reasons for deprodding. Should we take it to AfD at once or are you planning to (try to!) clean the article up? Guess you know what I think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick Chap, I think taking it to AfD at once is the best thing to do. Could you do this? I have no experience in submitting articles for deletion. I may try to clean up the article at some point during the AfD process, but depending on what others think, a simple cleanup may not be enough. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Taking it there is the easy bit ... then everyone starts arguing! Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		Thank you for your edits on the Phase lag (rotorcraft) article. I came across the article via AfD and couldn't really see any issues with the article, and then I went back and looked at the history and saw that your edits made it a substantially more viable article for Wikipedia in terms of content as well as adding sources into the article. It's like a completely different article, and its much appreciated. - SudoGhost 12:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the barnstar and kind words, Sudo! --Mark viking (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Chess.com

The article on "Chess.com" was deleted after discussion. Asking for it to be re-created will do no good. There aren't any reliable sources about it. OGBranniff (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I just found the deletion review for the article, which then showed the article has been created and deleted a number of times over the years. Counterintuitive that such a popular site has no independent commentary or reviews. But I agree, without RS, the article should not be re-created. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• FYI -- OGBranniff has been blocked indefinitely.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the notice. I will keep this in mind in the Chees.com and internet chess server discussions. --Mark viking (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Pleasure. Best. BTW -- I see he AFD'd a number of articles, some in the chess area. See here. Eighty per cent of the articles generally on which he voted delete resulted in a keep.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• And here is a bit more on the background. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

dcfldd topic

I tried to address dcfldd, I believe it was 3 for keeps and 2 for delete/merge

The problem is there are links I made on two other comparison clone list pages that nicely connects to the dcfldd article

Perhaps if a bot doesn't exist to update backlink, that there should be one.. Just a thought.. because I'm not going to edit 3 or 4 other pages that were previously linked to the dcfldd article

I believe I had to make a new section for dcfldd but thought against it. I can agree with this new section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dd_(Unix)&diff=next&oldid=549857533#Dcfldd

Swestlake (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Swestlake,

If the decision to merge is contested and reversed, I'm happy with reverting everything connected to the merge; after all I thought there were enough sources for notability. I'm sorry this is messing up the connections you made to the dcfldd article. What we could do is to redirect to dd (Unix)#dcfldd instead of dd (Unix)--at least your connections would go directly the dcfldd section. If there is anything important that I left out of the dcfldd section, please feel free to add it. Regards, --Mark viking (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

@Mark viking,

I do not understand the compliancy standards for wikipedia articles when it comes to Wikipedia's computing "list" articles.. like

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_disk_cloning_software

For eg, on ^, is the dcfldd entry still valid because I thought you cannot have a hyperlink to a subsection of an article for lists like this, and don't think I've seen any. I wouldn't know the stance on the wikipedia guidelines on this.. but after having creating dcfldd's article I felt more certain there would be less problems.

If you can point me to a wikipedia guideline about this, that would be great.. Thanks..

Swestlake (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

An article like Comparison_of_disk_cloning_software is called a list based article and such articles are described at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists. There is a guide for common selection criteria WP:LSC for members of lists. In that section, it states Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. I think if red-linked entries are OK, then certainly links to redirects are OK. In this case, we know that there are reliable sources for dcfldd and that an article could be forthcoming in the future. In fact on this list, ntfsclone is a link to a redirect as well. I don't see any problem with dcfldd staying on the list. --Mark viking (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

HML curiosity

Greetings Mark, do you know of HML, or were you just generally curating? I'm shocked anyone noticed this particular correction, much less so soon. Cheers, -Ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.16.174 (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ken, I had edited the HDL article before, so the correction popped up on my watchlist. I've heard of HML, but nothing more, and decided to check it out. Thanks very much for the correction--misdirected wiki links are not always easy to spot. Regards, --Mark viking (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, interesting, always wondered how that worked. And thank you for adding the reference, it didn't occur to me. BTW, did you download the guy's Master's thesis PDF? I'm kinda getting a little fascinated....

I have only read the the paper referenced so far. The idea of using SML's sophisticated type system and type checking to help design hardware does seem like a promising idea. In CS, people are using languages with sophisticated type systems, like Coq and Agda, to help prove program correctness--perhaps something similar could be done in hardware design? --Mark viking (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I am thinking maybe so. My issue with HLHDLs like VHDL and Verilog is that they allow the description of too many things that are not synthesizable. In software, if it compiles then it runs, but not in HLHDLs. To me, that's a language flaw. Synthesizers attempt to insert a knowledge base between a lower-knowledge developer and a higher-knowledge technology, but I think better results might be had if a language appropriately limited the developer's ability to describe. And a dataflow language like SML might do that, since hardware is fundamentally the physical implementation of dataflow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.16.174 (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Notifications box replacement prototypes released

Hey Mark viking; Kaldari has finished scripting a set of potential replacements available to test and give feedback on. Please go to this thread for more detail on how to enable them. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Many thanks for your continuously constructive, patient, and high-quality feedback and contributions throughout the physics and mathematics wikiprojects. It's a good thing you joined! M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 20:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks again for your excellent rewrite of the QFT lead, even if it is considered "too long" it's certainly comprehensible to the appropriate audience. Best wishes, M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 20:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the barnstar and for your support! I am still coming up to speed as an editor and appreciate the encouragement. The QFT lead is too long. I am still pondering how best to break it off into its own introduction section. Best wishes, --Mark viking (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Symmetry

Hi, you know we tidied up Tessellation? I've done some dusting and mopping at Symmetry; it reads not too untidily, and has a reasonable structure, but there's a sad lack of citations for the maths and physics. A major article, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick Chap, thanks for the gentle nudge. The article looks nicely organized and well written, but I agree that it could use a bit more depth and more citations. I've gotten busy as of late. but hope to have some time in the next few days to contribute to the article. I'll see what I can dig up. Regards, --Mark viking (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Fractional-order system

I appreciate your work in trying to fix up that new article from a new Wikipedia editor. Unfortunately, it seems to be the same topic as fractional dynamics, which has been around for a while, although it has little content. Perhaps merging the two would be a good idea. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aurthr, thanks for your note. A merger Fractional-order system and fractional dynamics sounds reasonable. Fractional dynamics is one aspect of fractional order systems and could make a nice major section in the FOS article. The other major section would probably be the control theory side of of FOS, with fractional PID controllers. Those seem to be the two major aspects of FOS that I have seen in the literature, although there are related systems, such as fractional quantum mechanics, and likely others I know nothing about. --Mark viking (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

• Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
• Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
• If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Need some advices

Hi, Mark. A few months ago we tried to create an article for GenMyModel and it hasn't been accepted. We deeply apologize for the inconvenience, and we saw you considered a few more reliable sources would allow the article to be accepted. We would really like to respect every rules, so here are a few links that might be interesting. Could you tell me if those sources would be reliable enough for a Wikipedia article? Thanks for your time ! Programmez.com, INRIA, Code painter. Simdup (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Simdup, I see you are a new editor--welcome to Wikipedia! There is no need to apologize for the creation of the GenMyModel article; I think it was created in good faith, it is just that it didn't pass Wikipedia's notability standard at the time. Notability, as described in WP:GNG, requires that there be multiple in-depth, independent, reliable sources available from which one could write a neutral article. Looking at the three sources you mention, here is my best guess of how these would be judged if the newly recreated article came up at AfD:

• Programmez.com - Programmez.com is usually a reliable source. At two paragraphs long, it is on the margin for in-depth. Some would say yes, it qualifies as an in-depth source, and other editors would say no, it is too short. But the main problem is that seems just a rewording of the Axellience press release. So critical editors would say this is not a source independent of the company.
• INRIA - IRINA is certainly a reliable source. The paragraph may be too short for in-depth and because Axellience was incubated at IRINA, some may consider not to be independent in this case.
• Code painter - This source is in depth and seems to be independent of the company. But most blogs are considered unreliable at WP because there is no expectation of fact checking and editorial review in these media.

I'm sorry I cannot be more encouraging in this instance. For what it is worth, GenMyModel looks like a fine product, and code and model development in the cloud seems to be the future. But a re-creation of this article with the sources you mentioned may well be subject to another AfD and possibly another deletion. I would hate to see you put a lot of effort into an article that could be deleted. --Mark viking (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help and thank you for your support! I think we will wait for new reliable sources to appear before submitting this article again. About Programmez.com, you didn't mention it so I guess it is fine if the sources are not in English? Thanks again! Simdup (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, Mark. I would like to thank you again for your advice last time. We have been working to find reliable sources to submit again the GenMyModel article on Wikipedia and here is what we have today:

• The articles from Codepainter, INRIA and Programmez.com from last time.
• This scientific article published in an official journal and written by one of our collaborators: lirmm.fr
• These articles on famous chinese sites: Developer.51cto.com and CSDN.net
• This review on the Cloudapp spotlight on Developer.com: CloudApp Spotlight
• This article on a quite visited Indian blog: Sudobits
• This tutorial made by an online IDE provider: Codenvy Docs
• And this updated article on a well-known website in our field (already used as a source for the "Modeling Languages" article: Modeling-languages

I would be very thankful if you could tell me if those sources are reliable enough for our article to be allowed on Wikipedia. Thank you very much! Simdup (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 19:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Wikidata weekly summary #75

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

• Events/Press/Blogs
  • State of the Map
  • Dbpedia-Wikidata workshop
  • Slides for a Wikidata intro in French and English
  • Speaker needed for a Wikidata talk in Slovakia
  • Blog post by Denny: A categorical imperative?
• Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • The URL datatype is now available. Go and add all the sources ;-)
  • Sourcerer gadget by Magnus to help you add URLs from Wikipedia articles for claims
  • Wikimedia Commons is scheduled to get interwiki links via Wikidata on 23rd of September
• Did you know?
  • Newest properties: Saskatchewan Register of Heritage Property identifier (P845), Global Biodiversity Information Facility ID (P846), United States Navy aircraft designation (P847), Japanese military aircraft designation (P849), World Register of Marine Species identifier (P850), ESRB rating (P852), CERO rating (P853), URL (P854), Sandbox-URL (P855), official website (P856), CNKI (P857), ESPN SCRUM ID (P858), sponsor (P859), e-archiv.li ID (P860), premiershiprugby.com ID (P861), Operational Requirement of the UK Air Ministry (P862), InPhO identifier (P863), ACM Digital Library author identifier (P864), BMLO (P865), Perlentaucher (P866), ROME Occupation Code (P867), foods traditionally associated (P868), instrumentation (P870), printed by (P872), phase point (P873), UN class (P874), UN code classification (P875), UN packaging group (P876), NFPA Other (P877), avionics (P878), pennant number (P879), CPU (P880), Variable type (P881), FIPS 6-4 (US counties) (P882), FIPS 5-2 (code for US states) (P883), State Water Register Code (Russia) (P884), origin of the watercourse (P885), LIR (P886), based on heuristic (P887), JSTOR (P888), Mathematical Reviews identifier (P889), Request for Comments number (IETF) (P892), Social Science Research Network (P893)
  • Newest task forces: Occupations and professions task force
• Development
  • Breaking change to the API in the last deployment
  • Started work on number data type
  • Worked on simple query special page
  • Worked more on moving (ordering) of qualifiers
  • Worked on JSON dumps
  • Continued working on allowing editentities API module to allow editing of claims
  • Continued work on the merge items API module
  • Worked on fixing the way Claim GUIDs are used throughout the code
  • Worked on TableDefinitionReaders for Database component
  • Unified and improved rendering of property values in summaries, diffs, wiki-pages, etc.
  • Continued moving to new browsertests framework
  • Bugfixes on autosummaries
  • Worked with GSoC student on mobile skin
  • Worked on refactoring of how we serialize and provide data about used entities on a page (e.g. entity pages or certain special pages) to the frontend
• Open Tasks for You
  • Help fix formatting and value issues for a property.
  • Respond to a "Request for Comment".
  • Hack on one of these.

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 16:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration with UCSF

Would like to bring your attention to this collaboration we have with the UCSF college of medicine [2]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 Wikification Drive

This message was delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To stop receiving messages from WikiProject Wikify, remove your name from the recipients page. -- EdwardsBot (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Nuclear Pasta Article

Hi Mark, below is the first draft of my contributions to the nuclear pasta article. Suggestions and changes are welcome. I have yet to compile my sources, but there is nothing here that isn't also present in some form of press release or science-news piece.

Formation

Neutron stars form as remnants of massive stars after a supernova event. Unlike their progenitor star, neutron stars do not consist of a gaseous plasma. Rather, the intense gravitational attraction of the overcomes the electron degeneracy pressure and causes electron capture to occur within the star. The result is a compact ball of nearly pure neutron matter with sparse protons and electrons in between in a space several thousand times smaller than the progenitor star.

At the surface, the pressure is low enough that conventional nuclei, such as helium and iron, can exist independently of one another, and are not crushed together due to the mutual Coulomb repulsion of their nuclei. At the core, the pressure is so great that this Coulomb repulsion cannot support individual nuclei, and some form of ultradense matter, such as the theorized quark-gluon plasma, should exist.

The presence of a small population of protons is essential to the formation of nuclear pasta. The nuclear attraction between protons and neutrons is greater than the nuclear attraction of two protons or two neutrons. Just like how neutrons act to stabilize heavy nuclei of conventional atoms against the electric repulsion of the protons, the protons act to stabilize the pasta phases. The competition between the electric repulsion of the protons, the attractive force between nuclei, and the pressure at different depths in the star lead to the formation of nuclear pasta.

Nuclear pasta phases are theorized to exist in the inner crust of neutron stars, forming a transition region between the conventional matter at the surface, and the ultradense matter at the core. Towards the top of this transition region, the pressure is great enough that conventional nuclei will be condensed into much more massive semi-spherical collections. These formations would be unstable outside the star, due to their high neutron content and size, which can vary between tens and hundreds of nucleons. This semispherical phase is known as the "gnocchi" phase.

When the gnocchi phase is compressed, as would be expected in deeper layers of the crust, the electric repulsion of the protons in the gnocchi is not fully sufficient to support the existence of the individual spheres, and they are crushed into long rods, which depending on their length can contain many thousands of nucleons. These rods are known as the "spaggheti" phase. Further compression causes the spaghetti phase rods to fuse, and form sheets of nuclear matter. This is called the "lasagna phase." Further compression of the lasagna phase yields the uniform nuclear matter of the outer core with intermitent voids. Progressing deeper into the crust, those voids change from being cylindrical, dubbed by some the "penne phase" or "antispaghetti phase," into scattered spherical voids, before ultimately becoming a uniform collection of nuclear matter. Sudoiusudo (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

99.149.24.11 (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sudoiusudo - this prose looks good. I found it easy to read and it covers the basics. I guess the main thing I would add is some informal definition of nuclear pasta before the third paragraph, where the term is used. You can probably say this better than I, but something along the lines of

Between the surface of a neutron star and the quark-gloun plasma at the core, at matter densities of 10¹⁴ g/cm³, nuclear attraction and Coulomb repulsion forces are of similar magnitude. The competition between the forces allows for the formation of a variety of complex structures assembled from neutrons and protons. Astrophysicists call these types of structures nuclear pasta due to the fact that the geometry of the structures resemble various types of pasta."

On the minor end of the spectrum, there are a few spelling errors to correct. Once you assemble your sources, I think you are ready to add your content to the article, perhaps in the "Overview" section. --Mark viking (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Savitzki-Golay

I originally wrote numerical smoothing and differentiation as a separate article to what was then called "Savitzky-Golay smoothing filter" because I could not see how to incorporate the material into the main article. It appears that I flagged the wrong page for deletion! numerical smoothing and differentiation is the one to be deleted. Sorry! Savitzky–Golay filter for smoothing and differentiation is to be retained and the redirect Savitzky-Golay smoothing filter also to be deleted. Petergans (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Opting in to VisualEditor

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit ^beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 100 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

AdS/CFT correspondence

Hi. Thank you for your helpful contribution to the discussion on this subject at Featured article candidates. As I'm the person who particularly requested the input of an expert in this area, I'd like to thank you personally. If you are able to add any further comments, these would be much appreciated; alternatively, if you know someone capable of performing a similar review to yours for the second half of the article I hope you'll encourage them to get involved. Once again, thank you! RomanSpa (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome. I will try to get to the second part of the article in the next 24 hours. Real-life beckons. Regards, --Mark viking (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fuzzy locating system

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fuzzy locating system. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Archive discussions?

Hi Mark, maybe you want to archive your old discussions on this page using this box? ---->

The nth archive page can be created by adding "/Archive n" to the end of the page title, i.e. User talk:Mark viking/Archive 1, User talk:Mark viking/Archive 2, etc. Inside those you could add {{talkarchivenav}} to the top and/or bottom of the page.

You don't have to link/label archives in the box, it's done automatically.

Just a thought. Best, M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 22:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Waveguide filter

I have responded to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Waveguide filter/archive2. Thanks very much for taking the time to review. Would you please revisit and strike those issues you think have been adequately dealt with or otherwise reply to my comments. Thanks, SpinningSpark 15:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

If this means that you are now satisfied with the article, would you please add support in bold to the page. Articles are not promoted to FA unless several editors explicitly say they support doing so. Of course, if you are not satisfied then don't do it. SpinningSpark 12:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Delectare merge to Orator (Cicero)

As one of the contributors to the AfD thread, I'd invite comments on what I've done with this merger. Thanks. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hemiphractidae 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:

• ''Flectonotus'' and ''Gastrotheca''), Cryptobatrachidae (''Cryptobatrachus'' and ''Stefania''), and[Hemiphractidae (''Hemiphractus''). There is still an active question as to which of these

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Supersymmetry

Hi!

You clarified one thing over at Symmetry in quantum mechanics. Thank you for that. There is a thing I'd like to ask about. For reference, you wrote

I've never seen such an argument, i.e, that it is phase space factors and conservation constraints, not strength of interaction, used to justify the non-interacting nature of higher spin particles. It is possible to construct massive interacting higher spin theories, e.g., [2] and [3]. String theory has massive particles of arbitrarily high spin, although those aren't seen because we don't live at Planck scale. --Mark viking (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC).

I'm not well versed in the subject, but I think that Weinberg (The Quantum Theory of Fields, vol 1) argues along the lines that there is no inherent problem, at least not a provably inherent problem with high spin particles and interactions. He does this mostly in the context of renormalization theory (somewhat speculatively at this point in the exposition, as he admits). He argues that nonrenormalizable terms (loosely speaking, complicated Feynman diagrams) might all cancel provided all interactions allowed by symmetry principles are included in the Lagrangian. "Nonrenormalizable theories are just as renormalizable as the renormalizable ones". (He also quotes interacting high spin string theories.) I interpret this as that we can't detect the effects because there is a highly suppressive factor coming from powers of the coupling constant. This way, both the strength of the interaction, and the complicated nature of the interaction comes into play. YohanN7 (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course, this has nothing to do with supersymmetry per se. YohanN7 (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi YohanN7, you make a good point. I see discarding potential QFTs due to lack of renormalizability as a sort of argument from ignorance; we simply don't know how to handle these nonrenormalizable terms. It may be a problem with he QFT, or it may be a problem our inability to solve a QFT with anything more sophisticated than a perturbation theory about a free field ground state. But in the space of all allowed Lagrangians, there may be those that induce cancellation of pathological terms due to hidden symmetries that we don't know about. Or we may simply be starting from an inappropriate vacuum state, causing pathological terms that would not even be there in another ground state. A good example of this in higher spin theories is the proposed ultraviolet fixed point for quantum gravity (see Asymptotic safety in quantum gravity for an exposition). Quantum gravity is one of the best known nonrenormalizable QFTs, but if this fixed point is real, these seeming infinite terms are symptoms of a pathological asymptotic expansiom, rather than a pathological QFT. --Mark viking (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I find this very interesting. We know two things for sure. Gravity exists (and presumably gravitons), and massive high spin particles exist (though the known ones aren't elementary). So, our present knowledge is far from complete regarding these issues.

I'm an amateur doing math and physics as a hobby with the long term goal of eventually understanding at least a little bit of the forefront of modern research in physics, and, of course, as much math as time will allow me to understand. Is there a book on Quantum Gravity (with or without strings) that you can recommend? (I can, given ample time, handle graduate level math and physics texts.) I have the Weinberg QFT series (volumes 1,2, and 3, haven't read 3 so far), and an introductory String Theory text by Barton Zweibach (forgot its name for the moment), which I'm halfway through. YohanN7 (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Another question: Do you have any idea what hidden symmetries might look like? (I'm not going to hold you responsible for any sort of answer here;) Speculations would be fine and appreciated.) Also, there has been speculations about dark matter being composed of gravitinos, the supersymmetric partner of the graviton. I read about this in Weinbergs "Cosmology" (a book I don't have available now) some time ago. I vaguely recall that this theory wasn't very likely for some reason. Do you know where I can find more information on this? YohanN7 (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The hidden symmetries I am thinking of are things like integrable QFTs, for example the paper Integrability in non-perturbative QFT. If one creates a perturbative expansion for an integrable QFT, one will find many Feynman diagrams generating nominally complex expressions for say, an observable. But if the integrable theory ultimately produces a simple expression for that observable, then it follows that there are likely going to be lots of cancellations among those complex terms. I've seen this happen in my own calculations. The amplituhedron is a recent example of the hidden symmetries possible when dealing with integrable theories.

If you've been able to digest Weinberg's QFT books, that's already a strong base for understanding modern theoretical research. For a conceptual introduction to quantum gravity, I like Rovelli's book. There is a free draft version here. I don't know much about gravitino-based dark matter theories. But all dark matter/dark energy theories have to satisfy experimental constraints from cosmology. At this point in time, the Lambda-CDM model is sort of the standard model of cosmology and any exotic matter explanation has to be consistent with its constraints, or needs a convincing explanation as to why those constraints don't apply. --Mark viking (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"If you've been able to digest Weinberg's QFT books, ..." Well, I'm not quite there yet. There is so much content, so it will take time to take all in, which is fine since this is a long term project of mine. But I hope I have digested some of it. I especially like these books for their generality and clarity. Most authors go quickly to specific theories, Weinberg, in essence, give all theories, or at least provides the general framework. Also, there are shockingly few errors in them. I saw an errata for the first edition of volume one. It had four(!) minor items, and only one equation was blatantly wrong. I have spotted (what I think is) an index error in volume 2, and a couple of typographical details, but that's about it. But the books certainly aren't the quickest path, and easier companion books are absolutely necessary.

Thanks for the link to Rovelli's book. YohanN7 (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

RM notification for Lingdian (band)

I've requested a move of Lingdian (band) to Lingdian. Since you participated in the AfD for Lingdian, you may be interested in this discussion. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Realization (metrology)

I was too hasty in reverting back to a better version of the article. Thanks for catching my mistake and re-adding your rs and example. I'll go a bit slower next time. Garamond Lethet
c 02:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries! I agreed with your revert, but wasn't quite confident enough with the material to do it myself. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You're invited: Art & Feminism Edit-a-thon

Art & Feminism Edit-a-Thon - You are invited!

File:Csaky madonna.jpg

Hi Mark viking! The first Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, February 1, 2014 in San Francisco. Any editors interested in the intersection of feminism and art are welcome. Wikipedians of all experience levels are invited! Experienced editors will be on hand to help new editors. Bring a friend and a laptop! Come one, come all! Learn more here! SarahStierch (talk) 09:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Today's featured article

You took part in the FAC of Waveguide filter which has now been promoted to a featured article. I have nominated it as a candidate for Today's featured article. If you wish, you can support that nomination here. Regards, SpinningSpark 17:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Smoke testing

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Smoke testing. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Monte-Carlo tree search

Hi. You have assessed Monte-Carlo tree search as grade C. Could you please tell me what you think the article lacks to get a B so that I can fix it? Here is the grading scheme: Wikipedia:Quality_scale#Grades. Thanks, MCiura (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi MCiura -- First, I want to say that this is a really nice article, well-laid out with good illustrations and excellent references. My assessment was a fairly cursory one, intended to help WikiProject CS organize articles and to see which ones might need some help. It could be that this is B-level and that I was being too conservative in my grade.

This article has B-level referencing with only a few gaps, such as no refs for 'Pure Monte Carlo game search' section and just one ref for the 'Advantages and disadvantages' section. The assertion 'Most contemporary implementations of MCTS are based on some variant of UCT.' needs a citation. Your reference for the assertion 'The leading example of its use are contemporary computer go programs' does not mention Go at all; you probably meant to link to the related About page at [3].

The C-level mostly came from my sense that the article could be made more comprehensive. Using the review paper A Survey of Monte Carlo Tree Search Methods as a guide, there is quite a lot of material in sections 4,5 and 6 of that paper about improvements. Some of these were mentioned in the 'Improvements' section of your article, but many were not. Also, there could be an 'Applications' section which has some of the many applications of the method, as in section 7 of the review. Go is most prominent, but application to other kinds of games or optimization problems could be worth mentioning, too, beyond a sentence in the lead.

--Mark viking (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

y-intercept article

Hiya. I noticed that you edited the y-intercept article in a useful way.

If you have a few minutes, could you look at an edit I wish to propose to this article (or perhaps propose just parts of it). It is at User:Lfahlberg/sb_y-intercept. The y-intercept article actually has most of this information, but has a request for citations. I added citations (probably many too many), reorganized it and added examples with images. I know 8 is too many, but 4 didn't cover the examples I thought it needed and once you go over 4, you might as well go to 8. Rows of 4 images look good on a tablet or ipad and on a regular computer monitor. (I am a visual learner so am big on images.)

If you think the current article is fine and just needs (some of) the citations, I will only propose that. (I wrote this article mainly because I am translating wikipedia math articles and I work better in English so it has served its purpose for me.)

I appreciate your time reading this letter. Lfahlberg (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lfahlberg. Your version looks like a nice expansion of the y-intercept article. I think the visual examples are a good thing for helping folks learn the concept. I'm personally not too concerned about 4 vs 8 figures, but if other editors feel 8 is too many, I'd recommend keeping the circle example in the final 4, as it is important to show that curves which aren't functions can have multiple y intercepts. The only thing I would add is to explicitly indicate in the first figure caption that the blue dot represents the y-intercept, just to remove any possible uncertainty. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your time and detailed recommendations! Lfahlberg (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Diastolic higher than sistolic

Hello Mark, You answer me on reference desk "This can happen when Intra-aortic balloon pumps are used, but that is a specialized case of an external pump out of phase with the heart." Can you explain me why in this case it can be- please? I thank you deeply213.57.99.239 (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)