Smcinerney
Welcome!
Hello, Smcinerney, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.
You might like to read these pages, which helped me when I was first starting 
:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Writing better articles
- Manual of Style
Wikipedia can be kind of crazy, so if you need help, don't hesitate to ask. Check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} in a new section on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome, and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
« D. Trebbien (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Braces edit
Are these the sorts of thing you had in mind when you asked about braces at the reference desk? If so, just click on "edit" and you'll see the TeX code. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Whether and how prominently to feature Vieta's Formulas in the Polynomial article edit
(silly rabbit) Vieta's Formulas are an important omission in polynomials. As support, I cite MathWorld PolynomialRoots It would have been better instead of totally undoing [my edit] to suggest a more suitable position and prominence in that article (e.g. [also] or List of polynomial topics.
They are an important omission. We can discuss the appropriate level of prominence and best location. I see they are linked deep down on [[1]] but I think most or all of the contents of that page should be directly promoted to Polynomial#See_also.
Let me know what you suggest.
Smcinerney (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, an easier way to contact me is on my talk page, user talk:silly rabbit. I added the link almost immediately to List of polynomial topics. I'm not in principle opposed to mentioning it in the article, but it should be done so in a more harmonious way, rather than by just chucking in a new section. Please bear in mind that at some point at least, someone did give a little bit of thought to the organization of the article. That said, I think a sentence or two can be added either to the Polynomial equations section or the History section. Without disturbing the current article structure. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds fine by me. Would you do it rather than me? (the overall structure of Polynomial is pretty good, and I did ponder long and hard how to make my change.) Also, what do you think of my suggestion that List of polynomial topics list is great but one level too deeply buried, and should be promoted to Polynomial#See_also?Smcinerney (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- See also lists should generally be kept short, in my opinion. There is no universal agreement about this, but I think having the list separate from Polynomial#See also. Maybe start a discussion on Talk:Polynomial about merging the list. But I don't know, certain editors are big on "topical outlines" of content. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds fine by me. Would you do it rather than me? (the overall structure of Polynomial is pretty good, and I did ponder long and hard how to make my change.) Also, what do you think of my suggestion that List of polynomial topics list is great but one level too deeply buried, and should be promoted to Polynomial#See_also?Smcinerney (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Notability of Worldbench edit
Hello, Smcinerney. Just a friendly note to let you know I've tagged Worldbench with {{notable}}, indicating that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability standards for inclusion. I'm on the fence about whether the subject possesses sufficient notability to warrant inclusion, but thought it worthwhile to open a dialog with you. Would you consider adding references that might support its notability? If you want to chat about this, just leave a note below and I'll see it. Regards & thanks, Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 20:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Jim, it's certainly a widely used consumer benchmark so I'm surprised anyone would quibble that. Here's one of 84,000 articles to corroborate that it is respected by experts for measuring hardware performance: [2]
- Hi again, Smcinerney, and thanks for your note. I accept that the benchmark software may have a broad user base, though that's not the point; the number of Google search results isn't germane, either. Instead, the article has to assert notability per Wikipedia's notability standards. It can do so by citing independent, verifiable reportage. The FAQs page cited in the article by the subject's publisher doesn't satisfy this, though substantial journalistic coverage would do so. Could you cite such in the article? (I'd have done this already had I found some, but my search results on the subject produce only press releases, regurgitations thereof, sites that sell (or reference-sell) the product and how-to-use information.) Thanks & regards, Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 12:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Jim, above I cited a reference to one tweaking expert using WorldBench as his performance reference for discussing CPUs: Tweaktown on Intel P35 Performance. There are many other such links, just let me know if this sort of thing is adequate. Here's another: AMDmileage.com on Athlon 2064 I already searched for a journalistic overview of benchmarks but couldn't find one.
- Hi again, Smcinerney, and thanks for your note. I accept that the benchmark software may have a broad user base, though that's not the point; the number of Google search results isn't germane, either. Instead, the article has to assert notability per Wikipedia's notability standards. It can do so by citing independent, verifiable reportage. The FAQs page cited in the article by the subject's publisher doesn't satisfy this, though substantial journalistic coverage would do so. Could you cite such in the article? (I'd have done this already had I found some, but my search results on the subject produce only press releases, regurgitations thereof, sites that sell (or reference-sell) the product and how-to-use information.) Thanks & regards, Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 12:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation edit
{{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Alpha Quadrant talk 22:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/California 1999/SB400, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)