User talk:Lfahlberg

Regarding your statement that some editors here have very different goals to you, I had a look at some of the Macedonian articles you've been working on (such as mk:Допуштени вредности (математичко образование)), and it appears possible that you might be more interested in one of Wikipedia's sister projects, like Wikibooks (in particular, http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Subject:Mathematics). The people you find here are devoted to creating a free encyclopedia, which is different in many ways from, say, a free textbook (hence the first of Wikipedia's five pillars). Anyway, I hope you decide to stick around. :-) Mark M (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You recently said that you can change almost anything anybody thinks needs changing in PNG images. The first homework will be:

• replace
  minus signs
  wherever a minus sign is assumed;
• change variables’ letters to the proper style and face.

I comment the latter in details. First of all,

I hope, you know how to upload new versions of an image to Commons. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. only names of variables should be italicized! Symbols may not be italicized. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Although WP:be bold is an important principle, you should be aware about already known problems that plague your editing in Wikipedia. Your [1] edit features the following irregularities:

1. A navigational item ({{polynomials}}) removed without explanation.
2. The link to a Wikimedia Commons category removed.
3. The categorization changed contrary to guidelines, namely: a non-existing (red-linked) category and an upper-level category: Mathematics.
4. An external link (PlanetMath) removed without citing policy or consensus relevant to this matter.
5. Inserted formulae littered with Cyrillic homoglyphs of Latin letters. You was already warned that it is contrary to the established typographical style at all. Moreover, here is English Wikipedia and a reader is not expected to read Cyrillic script in any form.
6. The edit summary to a serious edit was not provided. It is literally empty. Of course, neither was anything posted to the talk page.

This is far from a comprehensive list of all problems in your edit. These are just things that an experienced editor should not permit at all to happen (at least, should quickly fix it). This time I tried to fix the article myself. Henceforth, if I spotted your edit with a half of things named, or analogous to those, then I’ll simply revert it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comments at the math project and ANI. Choosing not to escalate at the latter was the right decision, but also an uncommon decision as well. If you've figured that much out after ~100 edits, you'll do fine here. Happy to have you aboard.

Here are a few bits of trivia that might be useful.

1. Putting "WP:" in front of mysterious acronyms in the search box gets you to internal policies, documentation, and commentary on both. A few of the more common ones:

2. The wikipedia

3. I will say that having a Ph.D. makes editing articles in your field a little more difficult. We're used to being able to wield the authority that our credentials provide, and that just doesn't work here (for both better and worse). Definitely read

Feel free to drop me a line if you have questions.

Best, and welcome!

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your kind note. The WP: thing is good to know and I will visit the teahouse. Lfahlberg (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your concern and addressed it in some detail. Thanks for the observation that the notion is missing in the article. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]