User talk:Zaslav

Welcome!

Hello, Zaslav, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrangement of hyperplanes

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia.

Your editing of arrangement of hyperplanes prompts these suggestions: There is no need to write [[subspace | subspaces]], since writing [[subspace]]s has the same effect. Similarly, [[apocrypha]]l and [[Austria]]n, etc.

A stubby little hyphen used as a minus sign is sometimes nearly illegible on some browsers. Contrast (-1) with (−1).

Italics are easier to write like this A then like this A. In expressions like L(A) I wouldn't include the brackets () among the parts that get italicized.

I'm glad to see someone working on the topics you've been working on.

Michael Hardy 23:43, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've realized all those things by now. No doubt there are others to learn. Thanks for the appreciation. You'll notice I've also logged in as "Ttzz" due to forgetfulness. If I ever find out how to merge user names, I'll simplify that. Zaslav 23:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian language

Hi, I've seen your comments on the talk page (I don't know why those were deleted). Generally, yes, the article is overweight and too in-context and too technical in parts. Also, both language and its extensive history are there, actually.

The reason for this was that before my active work on the subject it was an arena of "struggle" of the neighbouring nations' and local political opportunists' stereotypes. Even partial clearing of all this, and introducing some rationality and sense in the issue took time and effort. So, the text grew. I've tried not to remove anything just for the sake of brevity, yet.

And the work isn't finished, by a long way. There still remain lots of irrelevancies by which arguing sides tried to push their point, circumspectly. Look at the "comparative list of the words" -- why it's there at all?? Because some people wanted language represented with more "Western smell", and some wanted "Eastern".

Anyway, I'm going to renew my active reworking of the article, and I'd be grateful for your comments from the perspective of the "common" Anglophone reader. Feel free to leave those on my talk page. The issue is too mis- and under- represented in online encyclopedias. Yury Tarasievich 08:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen of the Galaxy

I wasn't responsible for the Kim reference. Though I can see a few connections:

Baslim and Mahbub Ali/Teshoo Lama
the British secret service and X Corps

I'm not convinced they're strong enough to support a direct link.

I also changed the section titles for The Stars are Ours! and removed the first sentence, which IMO isn't really necessary. Clarityfiend 06:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptomorphisms etc.

Hi, Zaslav. No complaints about your cryptomorphism sentence at all! Also, I really like the way matroid is turning out. Let me know if you ever start work on anything related. Changbao 08:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Star Beast

You assert that all editions except the Scribners omit two pages. What is the basis for this assertion, and can you elaborate as to the content of those pages? I have done a quick comparison of the hardcover with the various editions I have and can find nothing omitted. I'd be delighted to learn of this difference! Signinstranger 22:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing page found and info added to The Star Beast page. Signinstranger 16:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the missing page by borrowing a hardcover of The Star Beast from my local library, and following your lead as to where the omission occurred. Any US Scribner edition uses the original plates. As for the magazine version, I own a near-complete run of The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction. Signinstranger 15:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Style notes

Hi Zaslav. Just a note. The comma is better off in the math tags I believe, so this:

rather than this:

<math>x</math>,

because if you put the comma outside sometimes the browser moves to a new line, and then it looks odd, like this:

x

,

Wonder what you think. You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! If you saw this happen even once, that's the proof. I just never noticed this, and since in ordinary Tex it makes no difference, I never thought about it. I will keep your advice in mind. Zaslav 17:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does happen, not that seldom. :) Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seismic shadowing

Hi,

Since you made a wiki-link in the epicenter article, I have created a new article Seismic shadowing. Thank you... my first new article. Feel free to come by and add more to it. Astronaut 20:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your additions to this article. Yes, it is better from the layman's point of view to say in the first sentence that the phenomenon is caused by earthquakes. However, I have corrected a few small errors in the English grammar and I have changed some of the phrasing so it reads even better. Astronaut 11:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pregeometries in physics?

Hi Zaslav, I just became aware of you because of your orthographic clean-up in lattice (order). It looks like you are a matroid theorist. A while ago I edited the pregeometry article, which claimed at the time that the term is obsolete. I think that's only true for finite matroids / pregeometries, but I am not sure about the terminological conventions for infinite ones in general. The article also claims that "pregeometry" plays a role in physics. The uncountable use of the word is a bit suspicious, and I have no idea whether this word actually refers to a version (finite or infinite) of matroids, or to something completely different. It would be nice if you could have a quick look at the article. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without seeing the original Wheeler article, I would say there is no connection with physics. Furthermore, if Wheeler did think there was such a connection, it hasn't turned out to have any merit at all, as far as I know. If it did, I want to know about it! But unless it has been pursued in physics, it's a red herring and is only clutter in a serious article about matroids. Maybe it should be in the "Historical trivia" section along with "Combinatorial pregeometry" (see my edit to Talk:Pregeometry. Zaslav (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wheeler's "pregeometry" has nothing to do with matroids. See the paper "Multiboundary Algebra as Pregeometry" from the Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics. Zaslav (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited "Matroid" on infinite matroids to add "finitary matroid" as well as "finite-rank matroid" as relatively simple infinite versions. I edited "Pregeometry" to add the name "finitary matroid". The "Pregeometry" article should, in the view of this matroid theorist, be moved to "infinite matroids" and substantially rewritten, to remove duplication with "Matroid" and also maybe take advantage of some things that are well stated and could be used to improve "Matroid". Please let me know your feelings about these ideas, and also about my rewrites. Thanks.

A question to which I'd really like the answer: Do real model theorists use the term "pregeometry"? It's a horrible mistake of Rota's and very inappropriate in my opinion, for reasons which I can explain if you wish. The term "finitary matroid" is much more suitable, because it sounds like what it means--the term "finitary" is well established and exactly describes these infinite (or finite) matroids. Zaslav (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am very happy with your changes. The reason why I haven't done something like this myself is ignorance of matroid theory. I know the basics from browsing some books, but often you can't learn certain cultural aspects of a subject in this way. It wasn't clear to me that the closed sets definition (or those definitions that are equivalent to it) is a sufficiently accepted standard definition for the infinite case. Our current matroid article is no great help in this respect, because it never gives a clear definition of an infinite matroid, and I had the same problem with the matroid theory literature.

Yes, real model theorists use the word "combinatorial geometry" exclusively: Compare [1] and [2]. The standard reference for the basics of our subject is "Model theory" (or "A shorter model theory") by Wilfrid Hodges. Here are the relevant lines of his section "Geometries":

A combinatorial geometry, or for short a geometry, consists of … [closure axioms for a simple not necessarily finitary matroid]

This definition (Crapo & Rota [1970]) was intended for dealing mainly with finite sets, and indeed I have left out a clause which says that every closed set is the closure of a finite set. Instead we add another condition: [finite character]

A pregeometry (some say matroid) is defined the same way as a geometry, but without clause [simplicity].

I think this has happened because apart from having acquired this term in the early seventies we have no real connection to matroid theory. The alias "matroid" seems to be less common than references to "van der Waerden's axioms". Our matroids are all infinite and embedded in a lot of extra structure. We usually work in a "monster model", i.e. a generalisation of a vector space or algebraically closed field of dimension κ, where κ is a cardinal number larger than any cardinal that arises in our arguments. This is really just a trick to avoid category theory when working with the category of vector spaces or of algebraically closed fields. The automorphism group of the monster model is fundamental for us, and you can think of our monster model as a large finitary matroid equipped with a subgroup of its automorphism group that needs to satisfy certain conditions.

I wonder how it is the other way round: Did you know that model theory uses infinite matroids? Have you heard of Zilber's conjecture?

Here is why I think the "pregeometry" / "geometry" nomenclature is non-optimal: The word "pregeometry" is alread too long, and you can't expect people to add "combinatorial". Matroids are the real objects of study, the simple matroids are just an abstraction, so they should get an adjective. The word "geometry" is too common. Neither "geometry" nor "geometry theory" is a good name for matroid theory. Have I found everything? --Hans Adler (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm delighted with your explanations. Must rush out now but more later. I agree with your objections to "geometry". It's a huge area; you can't take that word for the little corner called matroid theory, finite or infinite. Zaslav (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enumeration of Pseudoforests

Hi,

With the current definition of pseudotree, I will edit the text:

"-The number of maximal pseudotrees with n nodes, and cycles of length at most one is equal to the number of rooted trees with n nodes. OEIS sequence number OEIS: A000081." To:

-The number of unlabeled pseudotrees with n nodes, and cycles of length one is equal to the number of unlabeled rooted trees with n nodes. OEIS sequence number OEIS: A000081.

I will also edit the text:

"-The number of maximal pseudotrees on [n] with cycles of length at most one is n^n-1. OEIS sequence number OEIS: A000169." To:

-The number of pseudotrees on [n] with cycles of length one is n^n-1. OEIS sequence number OEIS: A000169. There are also results about both labeled and unlabeled maximal pseudoforests with loops, not only about labeled pseudotrees. The given bijection is between rooted forests and maximal pseudoforests with cycles of length at most one.

Perhaps those pseudoforests are a very specialized subtopic, so I do not now add this information to the article.

--Webonfim (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for thinking about this question. I feel that pseudotrees/forests with at most one cycle, whose length is one, are best treated as rooted trees/forests. Enumeration should be in an article on trees and forests, if it is in Wikipedia. The pseudoforest article could have information on counting general pseudoforests and simple pseudoforests, labelled or unlabelled, if such results are known. I know of one paper on exactly this:

Nancy Ann Neudauer, Andrew M. Meyers, and Brett Stevens, Enumeration of the bases of the bicircular matroid on a complete graph. Congressus Numerantium 149, 109-127 (2001). Zbl. 1003.05031.

This counts labelled maximal simple pseudoforests. There are also related articles by some or all of these authors. Zaslav (talk) 08:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Al Khamsa (organization)

A tag has been placed on Al Khamsa (organization) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zaslav's comments on Intersection graphs

I do not agree with you. You do it if you understand what it is or ask the one who wrote the "Intersection graph". or you may delete it with my permission. Thanks.

--Tangi-tamma (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please relax and let us have a polite discussion. There is much to discuss, and I am not planning to do editing in the near future. Here are some reasons that I propose merging this article, but not Line graph, into "Intersection graph". 1. Line graphs have an extensive theory and literature with special properties, not shared by all intersection graphs, that are important in graph theory. Thus, line graphs are a topic of separate interest in their own right. A person interested in graph theory is very likely to want to know about line graphs, separately from intersection graphs. (I say this as a graph theorist who knows something of the interests of graph theorists.) 2. Article size: line graphs form a large article on their own, which would greatly lengthen "Intersection graph" if included. (This is one of the criteria for splitting up topics.) 3. Hypergraphs are the same as set systems. Thus, the general theory of intersection graphs is really the same as the theory of intersection graphs of hypergraphs. As far as I know, there is not such a large or distinctive theory of line graphs of hypergraphs as to belong outside a general article on intersection graphs. If I'm wrong, then an article on hypergraph line graphs is justified, but I don't see that the current article justifies being separate. 4. The material in this article would be beneficial to "Intersection graph". It would provide the concrete examples and liveliness that you find missing in "Intersection graph" (and I agree with you there). 5. The simplest title is "Intersection graph". 6. I am sorry to say this, especially since I think you must have written most of the article "Intersection (Line) Graphs of hypergraphs", but it really is poorly written in several ways. The English is poor. The organization is bad. The content is interesting, so major rewriting is needed and worth doing. The article "Intersection graph" will provide much of the introductory background needed, so it makes sense to use it. Here is a reason to oppose merging the articles. 1. Possibly, the techniques and theorems of hypergraph intersection graphs are significantly different from those of general intersection graphs. I don't see that they are, but those who know more about it may have arguments (that I would like to see). Finally, please keep in mind that Wikipedia articles do not belong to any one person. I look forward to continuing this discussion and arriving at concensus. Zaslav (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intersection_%28Line%29_Graphs_of_hypergraphs"

I repeat - you please start editing it if you want to see it on Wikipedia. (I assume you have some knowledge of Graph Theory. I have listed there all the references you may need to read). This addresses item 6.

Item 2: Huge articles are not meant for pleasure reading. The existing article needs further editing to make it fit into the regular size. It also needs editing.

Item 3: I have problem in understanding what you wrote. “Intersections graphs of hypergraphs..” by itself is very infinite.

Item 4: I do not know what you are trying to say.

Item 5: That is your perspective. It would vary if you ask someone. This is my observation on Wikipedia.

Item 6: Read below.

Also it is difficult to write high-level math on Wikipedia for a common man’s understanding. High-level math should remain in journals to preserve its beauty rather than transferring them to somewhere for the sake of doing some business. I do not have expertise to translate them to wikipedia’s standards. I have read several math articles on Wikipedia including yours – all have some or the other kind of problems.

The other article “Intersection graph” does not serve any purpose at all. It has nothing but the definitions. It is isolated. No comments about how it is written.

Since I started to write it, I authorize you to edit rather than spending your time on criticizing.

I’m removing your stuff from there and transferring it here- – let it be yours. --Tangi-tamma (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cographs and P_4

I don't know why you deleted the explicit reference to P₄ in the first alternate definition of cograph, but I've reinstated it. If you're interested to know why, see my year-old entry in the discussion page.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for deleting the notation: Usage is highly inconsistent in graph theory. Sometimes the subscript refers to vertices and sometimes to edges. Reason for not deleting the notation: You had it in the introduction with a clear definition. That's a good reason. I apologize; I done wrong. Zaslav (talk) 05:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Inline" TeX

I find some aspects of this edit unfortunate. TeX doesn't behave the same way within Wikipedia that it does when used in the normal way. If you write $x^{n}\,$ the x appears lower than the letters in the surrounding text, and all sorts of things fit badly, including the fact that the letters are three or four times as big as the surrounding letters on many browers. ("Displayed" TeX, however, works well.) Michael Hardy (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for taking a look at it. I agree that text Tex has problems. The WP italics also give problems, especially with the space or punctuation after the italicized symbols and with the smallness of the sub- and superscripts. It was hard to decide what was best. I followed what appeared to be the general style of that article. But please feel free to adjust it (of course). Zaslav (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Oriented matroid article, if you have time and interest

Hello Zaslav! You were very helpful (and gentle!) with my edits on matroids, so I welcome you to examine the expanded stub on oriented matroids. I am trying to recruit volunteers to help with the expansion more than I am asking for comments on a serious article (because tonight's writing has been nasty, brutish, and short). Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite matroids

Based on this, I assume you will be interested in the following paper, and especially in Footnote 2: Bruhn, Henning; Diestel, Reinhard; Kriesell, Matthias (2010), Axioms for infinite matroids, arXiv:1003.3919v1 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |class= ignored (help). Hans Adler 11:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've heard about this article three times already! I haven't had time to look at it yet. Maybe it's the big advance we've been waiting for. Zaslav (talk) 07:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GAC comments on Saadanius

I have addressed the specific concerns you listed on the GAC for Saadanius. Please revisit the review at your earliest convenience and let me know if you are happy with the changes. Thank you for your time and comments. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for completeness axiom

An article that you have been involved in editing, completeness axiom, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jim (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Susanne (1950 film)

The article Susanne (1950 film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence that it meets the notability criteria for movies

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skew-symmetric vs bidirected graphs

I see you've been adding material to the articles on skew-symmetric and bidirected graphs stating that skew-symmetric graphs are the double covers of bidirected graphs. But I'm a bit confused about how the double cover works. If you do it the way you describe (using the edge orientations to partition the edges incident to each vertex into two subsets, giving a polar graph, and then using the equivalence between polar graphs and skew-symmetric graphs) you lose information about the bidirections — you can't recover the original bidirected graph from its double cover. On the other hand there's a different way of orienting the double cover directly from the bidirected graph, by letting one of the two copies of each vertex control the orientation of its copy of each edge. As long as you remember which copy was the controlling one, this keeps all of the bidirection information, but it isn't skew-symmetric because some edges have the same orientation as their copy instead of always having the opposite orientation. So while what you describe makes sense, I guess I'm curious: why do it in the information-losing way? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I didn't add the description of the construction of the skew-symmetric graph from the switch graph. I did add the double cover and polar graphs. I may have made a mistake by assuming too much or (inclusive or) leaving out detail. A quick look at Cook's paper suggests that it was perhaps not accurately described in the article. I'll deal with this as soon as I can. Zaslav (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs to be looked at; sorry for delay. Zaslav (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Double factorial vs semifactorial

There are too many conversations about this. You seem to say that you want to revert your changes. I'm willing to try, if you can point out which of your edits are about this concept, or even when you started. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Congratulations to all the contributors to today's featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a interesting and wonderful article.

Bfpage |leave a message 11:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speed of light

You undid my edit, claiming that the speed of light wasn't "exact". I'm not sure what you mean by this; 299792458 m/s is the speed of light. Can you clarify why you changed it? KSFT ^C 13:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was too old-fashioned. You are correct, I was ignorant, and I'm reverting it. My apology to you! Note that the meter was not defined in terms of the speed of light until relatively recently (and I mean relatively). Zaslav (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think the approximate value 300,000 is more suitable to the purpose on this page, but it's not worth arguing over. Zaslav (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Zaslavsky?

So, are you perhaps Thomas Zaslavsky? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as it happens. Who are you? Zaslav (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am, uhh (my apologies in advance) an "anonymous coward", with apparently too much free time on their hands. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you answer to "67" or is it best to address you as "Hem 16"? (It took me this long to formulate an answer. "Hem": Gender-neutral, rank-neutral honorific, used in intragalactic all-species polyglot.) Zaslav (talk) 08:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

See Talk:Thalidomide#enatiomers.2C_birth_defects.

Your recent editing history at Thalidomide shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 22:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sweet and Low (1947 film)

The article Sweet and Low (1947 film) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- HindWiki^Connect 10:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sweet and Low (1947 film) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sweet and Low (1947 film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweet and Low (1947 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 10:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WBDY

I've reverted your change on the WBDY page. But don't fret, I'm going to create a page just for WBDY-LP. Gimme a couple minutes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:34 on April 30, 2019 (UTC)

WBDY-LP is up and running. Feel free to make changes as you see fit. I'm in Virginia, so Binghamton, New York is about outside my broadcast range. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:33 on April 30, 2019 (UTC)

Sala

Stop this type of disruptive editing you made on a geometry page. And if not you will be blocked for unnecessary biased editing. World soumya (talk) 04:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

String Sextet

Hello, Zaslav. About a week ago you changed String Sextet from a redirect into a disambiguation page. When only two articles share an ambiguous title, disambiguation is normally handled by putting hatnotes on each article. Also, when a potentially ambiguous phrase is the title of a work, capitalization alone can disambiguate the Wikipedia article about the work. Therefore, I made String Sextet redirect to Barcelona Ballet § Repertoire once again, and added hatnotes there and at String sextet. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for implementing a better solution. I didn't think of that. Zaslav (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The largest city of Ecuador

Hello, Zaslav. My name is Emilio Mondragón, user of Wikipedia since 2010. I have been claimed that Quito is the largest city of Ecuador nowadays, because the statistics of the National Institute of Statistics and Censuses (INEC), that it's the Government local census source, in its publication "Proyecciones Poblacionales". Retrieved April 18, 2020., Quito (as a canton, like a municipality and city, not urban area solely) figures with 2,78 million inhabitants in 2020, more than Guayaquil (which you defend as the largest city of the country), that figures with 2,32 million. I understand what you think, but Wikipedia has wrong data, because it only considers the urban area. In this point, Guayaquil has more population than Quito, 2,6 million to be exact. This is higher than the capital's one (2,0 million). For this reason, Quito has more inhabitants than Guayaquil, because we consider the rural areas (note that Guayaquil only has 100K people in its rural areas, lower than Quito, that has nearly 700K people in its rural areas). Please, try to understand that Quito is the largest city of Ecuador, Guayaquil has a lower growth rate of population than Quito, and we can't talk about the population of both cities without taking into consideration their rural areas. I invite you to analyze the projections that are in the link above (my English is not so good as you), and after that, you can debate your points of view in the talk discussion of Ecuador. Greetings. Emilio Mondragón (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two edits on pages of interest to you

(1) Per your Aug.2017 request, I went ahead and removed the "prose" flag template from The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress (song), with comment on the talk page there.

(2) I've added a quoted paragraph with a second, non-primary-source, reference, to Al Khamsa (organization), to help address the concerns flagged at top of page there. I suspect that's not quite enough to actually remove the flags, but it's a step. I also reformatted the original reference to the org's own website, so it won't get that "missing/empty title" notice. – _•Raven ^.talk 15:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ravel G major Piano Concerto

The seed you planted three years ago has now borne fruit. Thank you for setting the ball rolling (if I may thoroughly mix a metaphor or two). Tim riley talk 22:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horsley Towers

Many thanks for your interest in the above. Re. Ada Lovelace, while you may well be right, the source I have is rather more cautious. This describes her as "among the first", as indeed does our main article. If you have a strong source that is more definite, by all means drop it in but otherwise I think we will have to go with what the sources say and be a little more nuanced. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. I forgot to check the main page. Thank you.

Horsley Towers is quite a sight. I love the decorative stonework on the round tower. Zaslav (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve never seen it “in the flesh” but it does look rather shocking! KJP1 (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Koiné

Well obviously I reverted your correction because I didn't see, and still don't see, anything to be corrected. "Language variety that has arisen as a result of contact ..." strikes me as a normal English sentence, while " ... that has risen ..." sounds very strange to me. Of course you can say that English is not my native language and that I'm wrong, but I'm pretty used to reading the kind of scholarly literature where sentences like this one often appear, and I feel confident about my judgement. Can you explain to me what is wrong with the original sentence? --Jotamar (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you know fine points of English; it makes the discussion go better. There are two different situations here. "a standard or common language or dialect that has arisen as a result of the contact, mixing, and often simplifying" is good English. "a standard or common language or dialect that has arisen to prestige or dominance" is poor English and should have "risen". The problem arises (sic) due to mixing two different concepts with only one verb. I will try to fix this and you should please see if it comes out right. Thank you.

I'm applying two fixes in two separate edits. (1) to separate the two verbs. (2) to delete "and has achieved prestige or dominance" because the source Siegel (2001) makes no mention of that in its first paragraph; it's possible that requirement appears later but I got the impression it would not. Zaslav (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Zaslavsky

Hello Zaslav, I was just expanding the copy for Claudia and I found your note of caution on her talk page about errors in the previous version of her remarkable story. So I removed the offending lines, but I added many more words. The good news is that her entry is no longer a stub and will now move forward to becoming a more compelling Wiki page. The bad news is that there may be more errors. Please feel free to look over the new page and let me know if I should do more. She really was a remarkable woman. Best Ann AMM Pittsburgh (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P&O Maritime Services

Hello Zaslav , I hope you are well! I see you made a recent change on P&O. One of their subsidiaries P&O Maritime Services has now merged with another company and it is no more. I have a conflict of interest with the company so I wondered if you could help me update the article? I have added a change request on the article's Talk page. Many thanks in advance Occasionalpedestrian (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have little knowledge of this topic and can't help. Zaslav (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Old saw (July 2)

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

This is not the correct place to request new redirects. Please follow the instructions at Articles for creation/Wizard-Redirects. Thank you.

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:Old saw and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Old saw, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to 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.

Mori Calliope fan talk 05:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zaslav! 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! Mori Calliope fan talk 05:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate references

Re. your edit to Carmichael numbers.

I know it's quite an easy mistake to make, but please remember to check whether a reference has already been used elsewhere in an article, otherwise it makes unnecessary work for those who have to remove the duplicate!!

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Phooey. I thought this was too new to be there already; should have thought better of WP editors. My bad! Zaslav (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Old saw

Hello, Zaslav. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Old saw".

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!} 05:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-1960s YA

Hi. Following up on last month's discussion of the origin of YA, I just ran across a very interesting article on it, which among other things says:

Librarians first began calling teenagers “young adults” as early as the mid-1940s. In 1944, librarian Margaret Scoggin wrote a journal article introducing the term, and arguing that the group constituted a new service population. (Scoggin is remembered for her work in helping to establish the New York Public Library’s landmark Nathan Straus Branch for Children and Young People in 1940. The Branch became a template for other libraries that established service for young adults in the 1940s.) Thereafter, the two designations—“teenager” and “young adult”—were typically used interchangeably by librarians and educators. The practice of referring to “young adult” literature was formalized in 1957 when the American Library Association created its Young Adult Services Division, which focused librarians’ attention on how to serve this new population.

So you're right, it predates the 60s. And if you were in New York City at the time it might predate the 60s by a lot.

I plan to add this to the article, but probably not right away because the article is in a lot of flux right now. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! This is hard data. Nice work!

I was in New York City patronizing the NYPL in the early to late 1950s. To find science fiction I went to the YA section of the library, which is where almost all of it was shelved.

I notice that the cited article is snide and inaccurate at least as concerns science fiction when it say "inconsequential, formulaic, genre fiction". The author obviously doesn't understand science fiction at all. I wonder if the insult is also inappropriate to the other categories mentioned. Zaslav (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marble Freedom Trust link

I added the link; it worked for me! Sorry about accidently reverting one of your edits there, I was just trying to move the picture and was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Cheers! BBQboffin (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You noticed that I forgot to restore the link after creating a real Marble FT page. Thanks for fixing that. Zaslav (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Pedro Ontaneda

Hello, Zaslav,

Thank you for creating Pedro Ontaneda.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

There is nothing in the current article that indicates notability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ldm1954}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Ldm1954 (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secretum

Please stop adding a 'citation needed' tag to the same point: there is already a citation that supports this - it's the next one in the sentence, number 20. - SchroCat (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not wildly adding CN's. You did not understand my complaint. The citation only appears to apply to the second of the three items. I suggest adding a citation for the statue, even if it's a duplicate, so readers will know all three items are cited. If you don't do it, I will, since you are assuring me it's the right citation. Zaslav (talk) 07:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you were "wildly" adding anything, but the information is already cited, and it is done so correctly as far as any normal standards (including those for a Featured Article) are measured. As the information is already cited it does not need another citation in mid-sentence, as too many citations makes text difficult to read for many. If you needlessly repeat the citation, I will remove it as being superfluous - see WP:CONSECUTIVECITE and WP:REPCITE. - SchroCat (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't understand. Zaslav (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really do. There’s information supported by a citation. It doesn’t need an identical citation half way through the same sentence. That’s it in a nutshell. - SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it really does need the citation because three separate claims are made with only two citations and it is impossible for someone like me to know that the first claim goes with the citation of the second claim. That is why I was troubled in the first place. If there were only one citation for the whole sentence, it would not be a problem.

But here is a bigger citation problem. The picture is from WikiMedia and at that page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:S%C3%A0tir_i_nimfa,_intent_de_violaci%C3%B3,_exposici%C3%B3_la_Bellesa_del_Cos.JPG, there is extensive text in the Summary explaining the statue that has no citations at all. And it is not the same as what Secretum_(British_Museum) says. I think it needs attention. Zaslav (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I’m sorry you don’t understand how to cite information properly, but that’s a ‘you’ problem that doesn’t need to disturb the article. Everything in the first part of the sentence is supported by footnote 20; everything in the second half is supported by footnote 21. I hope this clarifies what has been standard practice (and what is echoed not just by our own guidelines, but normal academic standards worldwide. Now I explained fully, I won’t have to return to the subject or, hopefully, this page again. - SchroCat (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you are snarky. I have plenty of experience with academic citations but my area uses rules different from those you insist on. Yes, such differences do exist; apparently you did not know that. I see you as limited by rules that are not known to most readers and by failure to use judgement with an understanding that such rules must yield before clarity. I would also like to ask where I can find your rules for proper citation, especially in WP, since there do exist different conventions. You seem to know exactly where to find those rules. Please do tell me.

I suggest you could do good by turning your attention to the WikiMedia summary I told you about, that has no citations. Do you think that needs no attention? Zaslav (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]