User talk:Shreevatsa/Archive 3

(2010)

• 1
• 2
• Archive 3
• 4

Feynman point

Since you contributed to the article Feynman point, I'm asking you to respond to this question. Thank you. --bender235 (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for R. Shamasastry

On February 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article R. Shamasastry, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Daśāvatāra#Move_to_which_name

Thanks for giving your comments at Talk:Daśāvatāra#Requested_move. As per the consensus: The result of the proposal was move to nondiacritic for the article. Several alternatives have been presented for this particular article (Dashavatara, Dasavatara, Dashavatar) so please help pick an appropriate one. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

On Jiva

Thanks for your comments. Krishnachandranvn (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Co-conspirators

Moved to User talk:Bonewah 18:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Carnatic music

Hi, I'm not aware of an expert on Carnatic music on here, sadly, who could help answer notability questions. That could be because I have not really edited Carnatic music articles much and had generally not much contact much with it - Hindustani music is so much more prevalent. However, thanks to the discussion I remembered I had only skimmed the Indian music section of the New Grove before, so that was a good reminder :) Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad something good came of it. :-) In fact, I was wondering what notability really means — notability, on Wikipedia, is proportional to how much has been written about something (weighted by sources, perhaps), but this does not necessarily correspond to real-world importance. (E.g. the actual songs in Indian classical music rarely get any coverage even if they are performed thousands of times.) On the other hand, we can only have articles about things that have been written about, so there's probably no better way. Shreevatsa (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Date Styles

Per WP:ERA,you are not to "change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change." This change was made Feb. 2009. I am reverting these changes per wikipedia standards. (68.218.182.143 (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

I think you're wasting your (and everyone's) time. I don't care what the article uses, but when directly quoting a source, we must use whatever it uses. In this case, Rachel R. Mairs, like most scholars, uses BCE and CE. Look for yourself. Shreevatsa (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Where at WP:ERA does it say that? If you watch the History Channel, most scholars on those shows use BC/AD, but that is not the point. Wikipedia's rules are very very clear. You have NO right to revert my edits. The style was established as BC/AD for that article, and I will change it everyday if I must. (68.218.182.143 (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

Huh? Direct quotes must be direct quotes; this surely doesn't require elaboration, and trumps article style or WP:ERA. If you're going to change something within quotation marks, you must indicate having done so. (Note BTW that Wikipedia has no "rules"; its policies are merely reflections of consensus among editors.) Shreevatsa (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Lost Leader (poem)

On April 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Lost Leader (poem), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Kannada Prosody

Namaste, Thank you for correcting blurb on Kannada Prosody. I added the Shastri's book that I used as reference. Good night. ~rAGU (talk)

Namaskara. :-) That's good, to include the references. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Kaprekar

It was nice working with you too. Want to together on some other article too? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that would be fun, since I admire your productivity in contributions to Wikipedia... But my editing on Wikipedia is usually erratic with small obsessive spurts, and right now I'm trying (and failing) to stay away from Wikipedia for a while to regain control of life (this morning was a mistake :p), so I'll ping you once I return and have some time. Best regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Shishupala Vadha

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Martin Gardner

Hi. Regarding the [revert] to Martin Gardner, while the biography style guide is silent on the point, I did a quick check in recent deaths and the use of "best known" seems to occur with "was" and not "is". Can you re-consider your change? Thanks. --163.153.230.190 (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I reconsidered my change just now (and it had no effect). Do you mean to suggest that though he was known for [something], he somehow became no longer known the moment he died? Looking at recent deaths is misleading because those articles may be affected by similar misguided edits. Looking at some random articles of dead people that come to mind:

• Lewis Carroll: "His most famous writings are […] He is noted for…"
• Isaac Newton: "is considered…"
• Peter Mark Roget: "He is best known for…"

etc. Shreevatsa (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Shreevasta. While I agree with the logic, it does not appear to be the prevalent usage:

• George Orwell: "During most of his career, Orwell was best known for his journalism"
• Jim Morrison: "was best known as the lead singer and lyricist of The Doors"
• W. M. Kiplinger: "was best known as the founder of Kiplinger"
• Marguerite Hamilton: "was best known for her two books written in the 1950s."

A search for "was best known" (which admittedly has some articles other than bios), shows over 2500 articles which use that phrase. From a consistency standpoint, do you think that the articles should be changed? --163.153.230.190 (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There are also about 25000 articles for "is best known" (which includes living people and non-biographies). Since both are grammatically correct, there is no need to blindly change one to the other for the sake of consistency. Besides, the phrases do not have the same meaning: some people were only known during their lifetime and are not well known today (so the past tense may be appropriate), and for some people, what they are best known for today is different from what they were known for during their lifetime. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, two of your examples illustrate my point: the lead of Jim Morrison has "He was best known as the lead singer and lyricist of The Doors and is widely considered to be one of the most charismatic frontmen in rock music history". The lead of George Orwell has "He is best known for the dystopian novel…" while the literary career section later below has your sentence "During most of his career, Orwell was best known for his journalism…" which nicely illustrates the difference. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Appreciate the message regarding the mistake, and I am aware of bite.  – Tommy2010 22:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Sreevatsa! Raj2004 (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Āryabhaṭa numeration

Thanks for confirming the correct characters from sources and fixing up Āryabhaṭa numeration!

Arun (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Thanks for pointing out the issue — although I had the article on my watchlist for some reason, I read it only after an error was pointed out. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Brahmin and the Mongoose

Courcelles (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

literature

I have replied on my talkpage. Basically I think you are confusing literature with belles-lettres. --dab (𒁳) 09:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Shishupala Vadha

Hello! In this edit that you made to Shishupala Vadha on 6/14, you added a ref name of "ingalls" but did not include an accompanying source. Could you please revisit the page and add the source you intended? thanks! - Salamurai (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I thought no one would notice. :-) Fixed now. Shreevatsa (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I have marked you as a reviewer

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

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

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

The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Shreevatsa (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Neemrana Hotels

• Hi, take a look at the article.It looks like an advertisement.So,It must be nominated for deletion.On Wikipedia, Advertisements should not be written and if so then It should be deleted even within few minutes.So, You may not delete the deletion tag before an administrator reviews it.$Max Viwe$ (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The speedy-delete notice says "If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice". What is the source of your claim that such tags should never be removed? The article may well turn out to be unsalvageable, but note that "simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article" as spam, and "looks like an advertisement" is only a reflection of its existing state, not possibilities. I have no opinion yet, but I intend to find out, and will remove the tag in the meantime. Shreevatsa (talk) 07:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Er, thanks (again). :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

== yes, this wikipedia is still not very well done. Maybe they will make it some time - so then we can contribute well. It is to be understood temporary - wikipedia might improve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.108.86 (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Shreevatsa, Ekabhishek^talk 11:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Astrology software

Can you please stop jumping to conclusions as to my motives. The last few comments in the thread have nothing to do with Geology software, so I thought moving them might allow people to find the comments better. Almost the reverse of hiding them, and note that the discussion was quite collegial to that point and I proposed it rather than simply doing it. Verbal chat 13:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

To put it another way, can we move on from this and concentrate on improving the article, and drop any questioning of others motives etc? It will stop us getting sidetracked and hopefully lead to faster improvements rather than meta discussion. What do you think? Best, Verbal chat 13:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. First, let's stop meta activities like moving or collapsing talk page discussions, or hounding inexperienced users over minor matters. It isn't very welcoming, and there is no need to make comments you think are "better" more visible. I wasn't questioning your motives, just pointing out a repeated pattern in your talk page edits, here and elsewhere. (If you hadn't been so keen on renaming comments by another user into a new section, it would still be under "Better references".) Let's stop all this and focus on improving the article.

I do my best to assume good faith. And I am sure you are a valuable contributor on pages you approve of. For some reason, this is hard to see in this case — all your most recent "contributions" to the article seem to have been to deface it by adding various tags. I will try to hold on to the assumption that you are honestly trying to improving the article, and not simply try to hit it with your interpretations of policy (statements like "Please state with reference to the criteria in…" come to mind) for as long as it is possible, and will definitely most whole-heartedly welcome your much-promised improvements to the page when they start to actually occur. Best, Shreevatsa (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Vegetarianism and religion

Can you pls check out the rev history of Vegetarianism and religion and come in with some inputs on the edit war going on. I badly want to avoid a talk page argument here for i expect a purely unproductive dialogue with "that" user. Thank you for your time. Arjun^codename024 21:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look. Shreevatsa (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Aesop among the Jews

I agree with you about immediate redirection. It was something I was turning over in my mind in the course of a long journey today. It's done. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Great! Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

talk:exponentiation

Hello. You did a good job trying to improve exponentiation. Thank you for that. I disagree with the undefiners in very elementary matters. Trovatore wrote: "exponent is an integer, not a real number". To me all integers are real numbers too. Have you got a good idea regarding resolving this disagreement? Thanks. Bo Jacoby (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC).

I think at this point we're beyond the scope of Wikipedia: arguments over what is "correct" and ought to be used are best left to the real world. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Bo Jacoby (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC).

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Hinduism. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Sikh-History 18:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:DTTR, dude. :-) Responding to template: it was my intention, I did provide an edit summary in my revert, and it's already being discussed on the talk page. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Done

Devanagari spellings

If you see the actual usage by LIC/Coast guard etc, the original ones are what's used, not the new changes. —SpacemanSpiff 08:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for pointing it out... best to revert it and add sources, then, to avoid future confusion. I think in standard Sanskrit typography when words are put together म् tends to be replaced with a dot, but clearly the spellings actually used are what we should have on the page. Could you find sources? It may be a bit of work… :-) Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW at least in the case of LIC the change made appears to have been correct: see image. Haven't checked the others. Shreevatsa (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Coast guard I found on the website - it's a gif, so don't know how that can be referenced, LIC I just googled; didn't find any (either sp) for the Goa bit but just went in with the assumption that would follow the other two. Will find a textual ref and it later. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Evaluate this edit? —SpacemanSpiff 10:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted it. It seems like made-up nonsense. (That Rakshasas are nocturnal in mythology is true, but the etymology is made up.) The dictionary says "राक्षस" is "belonging to or like a रक्षस्", which in turn has meanings unrelated to night or eyesight. I guess any edit claiming to talk of "the actual and scientific explanation of the word…" is highly likely to be anything but. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please be civil

Please be civil when making edit summaries and when using Wikipedia in general. I have made clear points in my discussion on the talk page on canon (fiction), including making it quite clear that I do not approve of using words in ways which cannot be found in any dictionary. While it is a valid opinion to claim that when words are used by many to mean something, that that use then becomes acceptable, you would do well to respect my side of the argument as well. That having been said, I think the article as it currently stands is worded in an acceptable and neutral way. However, comments such as "find a source if you want to make such meaningless remarks" are highly insulting when we have both made substantial efforts to improve the page. --Darktower 12345 21:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please be sensible. I see no reason for you to get insulted when I call a claim meaningless. It's hardly incivil — claims are not sentient, and cannot get offended. As much as I may appreciate you as a person or your efforts, it does not preclude me from having opinions on sentences. Besides, "meaningless" is not even an adjective describing quality (like "poor" or "rubbish"), but merely describes content: whether something contains meaning or not. Shreevatsa (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

For you to state that my claims are meaningless is indeed insulting, because it implies that my reasoning behind them, which was stated and backed up numerous times, is flawed. Though less severe in degree, your comment was of the same type as one telling a doctoral candidate that the fundamental ideas behind his/her dissertation is nonsensical. Please act in a civil manner in the future, lest you offend many others. --Darktower 12345 21:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why this reaction seems so touchy. Anyway, if it helps clarify matters: yes, I (re-)state that your reasoning behind them is flawed. No, this is not an insult. This is turning into a pointless discussion (BTW: not an insult (esp. since I'm also involved)), so I'll stop this here. Shreevatsa (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that you have missed my point, so I'll have to pick it back up for your benefit. It occurs to me that you may be from a different culture, in which telling someone that their ideas are meaningless and that their ability to reason is impaired, is not insulting. I shall therefore educate you in assuring you that you are in the minority in this opinion and that, in order to be considered polite to all, you cannot do these things. In any case, deciding whether or not I feel insulted is not up to you, but me, and I do, so you have erred. Please be civil in future dealings as to not, even inadvertently, insult others. --Darktower 12345 02:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No thanks. Goodbye. Shreevatsa (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.

I have pointed out to you that I felt you insulted me, specifically explained why, and asked you to be civil. Since your substitute for a simple apology was, "No thanks. Goodbye," I will leave you this tip regarding Wikpedia policy, in case others find you to have acted in an uncivil manner to them as well. (Warning for Wikipedia: Civility: Direct Rudeness: articles (a) and (d)) --Darktower 12345 03:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Most amusing. :-) But I'm getting weary of this now. Please stop. Shreevatsa (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

User talk:Sadads (Done)

Bhartrihari

I know the sphota article - a lot of the text there is from an old major expansion of mine. The satakatraya article is quite good, hadn't seen it before. Notice you have been doing a lot of work on these. Great work! mukerjee (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

In this context, perhaps you may be interested in collaborating on a series of articles on the truly ancient scholars like sphoTAyana, whose work is cited, but lost. some years back, I had created an article on shakatayana; we need similar articles for others quoted in pANiNI, yaska, and others - e.g. vyAdi and AudumbrAyaNa. And also other authors quoted in other texts. E.g. the kamasutra quotes Auddalaki, Babhravya, Charayana, Dattaka, Ghotakamukha, Gonardiya, Gonkaputra, and Suvananabha. Clearly, many of these people go back to 8th, 10th BCE. Need to have some basis for these authors and create these articles also... mukerjee (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! You're right... it would be great to have articles on all these, if we can find sources. Unfortunately, all these are just names to me, so I don't know where one may find sources. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Indic scripts

I remember Abecedare telling me that you had an indic script generator, can you provide me a link please? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 21:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Not exactly... there's a somewhat incomplete one I had made for Devanagari transliteration here, and even more incomplete trivial variants of it for Tamil and Kannada. But one of the external links at Help:Multilingual_support_(Indic)#Other_input_methods would probably be better. (Do tell me which one you use, or if you can think of improvements to make to my script…) BTW, the link will probably go dead sometime soon. Shreevatsa (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Mostly Devanagari and Tamil. My Kannada is ultra gothila, so I won't use it; suddenly my mylai font stopped rendering on my macbook, besides the typing on English keyboard is difficult anyways. I'll let you know sometime next week when I use it -- am on and off these days. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 21:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Adi Shankara

Can you take a look please? A few odd edits in recent times, could use some clean up. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look sometime. cheers, Shreevatsa (talk) 03:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I looked at the recent edits, and it makes me weary… seems like trying to keep pages like this in good shape is just an endless time-sink. :-( I'm not expert enough for this, so I'll give up, sorry. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, you can't blame me for trying. I had the exact same reaction when I looked at those edits :) —SpacemanSpiff 13:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Euclidean geometry includes 3-dimensional Euclidean goemetry

This edit is wrong. Euclid wrote about Platonic solids. Euclidean geometry is obviously NOT the same thing as Euclidean plane geometry. Targets that are redirects are appropriate when there is potential for the redirect to become and article later. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, I was aware of that... my concern was to get the dab page pointing to the right articles and in a clear way. I guess that most of the time someone looking for "plane geometry" is looking for what-they-learned-in-high-school, the article for which is (currently) Euclidean geometry. Thanks for your fix which doesn't change that; I think the disambiguation page is most clear now. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Question on P vs NP

Hi, I have a question or two regarding the P vs NP talk page, specifically the psuedocode attributed to Levin which it is claimed will solve SUBSET-SUM in polynomial time if and only if P=NP. 1) Do you know where this idea originally came from/where I could find it? Levin? 2) Why would this be true? What if there is an exponential solution M bits long and taking N steps, and a polynomial solution that is M1>M bits long and takes N1 > N steps (due to constants) for an instance of subset-sum. Then wouldn't the algorithm run "in exponential time" without finding the polynomial solution? Sorry to ask you but I find this really interesting and can't find a reference for this algorithm's idea, and your discussion post seemed very informed. Thanks luv2run (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

1) it originally comes from Leonid Levin, and the idea is known as universal search — I believe the reference is this one. In any case, I've added a link and request for citation in the article. Some further references, and explanation, can be found in this Scholarpedia article on Universal Search, and also briefly in this blog post.

2) The notion of "exponential time" and "polynomial time" are defined asymptotically, as the size of the instances goes to infinity. If for the particular instance you mentioned, the so-called "exponential time algorithm" takes N < N1 steps, it's all good, since it's taking even less time than the polynomial algorithm. That is, it doesn't make sense to talk of exponential time and polynomial time for one fixed instance.

Hope this helps, and if it isn't clear feel free to ask again either here or at Talk:P versus NP problem, Shreevatsa (talk) 06:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Rewa Prasad Dwivedi

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Cfd for Category:Non-Western classical music genres

Hi, you replied to the original discussion on this topic, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 23#Category:Non-Western classical music genres. In case you would reply to the new one, here it is: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 29#Category:Non-Western classical music genres Regards, Munci (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:MurliManohar.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:MurliManohar.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

(To myself) The relevant tag was {{non-free 2D art}}, which is in the list Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/All but isn't in the upload form. Shreevatsa (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Shri Chaitanya-mangala

‘chaitanya-mangala’ shune yadi pashandi, yavana seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana If even a great atheist hears Shri Chaitanya-mangala (previous name for Shri Chaitanya-bhagavata), he immediately becomes a great devotee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.94.134.107 (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Why am I the lucky recipient of this mysterious message? Shreevatsa (talk) 10:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Aryabhatiya

Thanks for the correction! That's embarrassing that I picked the wrong one. I don't know how I managed that. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Agada

Hello, my friend: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The article in the above header has been without sources for the past four years and I am clueless as to how to find them (since I am totally without knowledge in this field). Of course I have posted a plea for help to the good people at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Alternative_medicine#Agada, and perhaps you might be able to suggest another route as well. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is for so quickly Sourcing and improving the Agada article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

re arabic-ghobari numerals

hi. unfortunately you removed the paragraph, "The glyphs of the numerals were constructed such the glyph for each numeral N would contain a number of angles equal to N-1, with some obvious examples from 5 onwards. Which suggest an initial construction from 0 to 5, with a different added extension for the remaining five numerals." this is from an arabic reference on the history of those numerals, and their visual evolution. i would like the paragraph reinstated, and i will add a citation for my addition. what do you think? thanks :) Scriber (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the "number of angles" story happens to be a mythical origin for the numerals, popular in the Arab world. It originated as a mnemonic, meant to help people remember which symbols were which, but has mistakenly transformed into an actual belief on how the symbols arose. You will find it flatly contradicted by any recent historian of mathematics who mention it. See, for example, pages 64–68 of Florian Cajori's monumental book A History of Mathematical Notations. Still, it may be worth adding it to the article as a prominent false belief that is widely held by many. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks for replying. i do not recall getting it from a nursery class, but rather from an encyclopedia by one of the regional Arabic language councils - the reference i intend to add as a citation once i go to the library; i am sure they also have an historical rationale for that formulation. One reference onlne refers to it as a quintary system. However, please do not refer to others' (or at least my) edits as "nonsense", it is both hurtful and presumptuous. I try bring a level of quality to my edits, that it hurts when another derides it as something less. As fellow wikipedians, we are not in competition, but in collaboration. Cheers. Scriber (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I've hurt you — I agree about the spirit of collaboration and wasn't referring to your edits; I only meant that the actual theory about the symbols is nonsense (I should have said, "an appealing and popular, but incorrect explanation"). No offence to any person intended, and I certainly didn't mean to deride your edits. Hope we can collaborate and put these articles in good shape. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

(2010)

• 1
• 2
• Archive 3
• 4