User talk:Zvika

I will reply on this page unless you request otherwise.
Please watch this page if you comment.

Archives

/Archive1 (Sep. 2005 - May 2007) /Archive2 (June 2007 - Feb. 2008) /Archive3 (Mar. 2008) /Archive4 (Apr. 2008 - Oct. 2008) /Archive5 (Nov. 2008 - Mar. 2009) /Archive6 (Apr. 2009 - June 2009)

Hi Zvika, As the main contributor to he:תמר המקראית, please see the discussion page there. Amnon s (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up! I will respond there as soon as I get a chance. --Zvika (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zvika, the GPS article has been put up for peer review. Would you like to review as much of the article as interests you and provide your comments? We hope you are able to help us out. RHB100 (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch out when you revert for vandalism; I'm not sure that these two edits were vandalism, for example. The IP might have been quoting from the part of the speech Obama was speaking at the time the photo was taken, i.e. a 'caption' in the other sense, (though there'd need to be some actual reason for believing that's really the correct quote). The edit might not have been very well thought out, but probably not done maliciously. —AySz88\^-^ 20:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's stretching AGF a bit. --Zvika (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought a bit more about this.. maybe you're right that the intention was not vandalism, but I still think an unquoted, uncited sentence was worse off. I guess I should have reverted without claiming it was vandalism. --Zvika (talk) 07:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see Talk:Autoregressive model. Albmont (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Somehow when I read the page originally I thought I saw a strictly greater than sign rather than a \ge (which indeed is equivalent to \geq). Humorously, I didn't have the extra line under the > visible because I had scrolled down just before that point. I also somehow didn't notice the latex \ge is identical to \geq. I'm reverting my change now as it's pointless. Thanks for catching that. --Tekhnofiend (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my error. I was a bit too enthusiastic in pointing out everywhere that the expectation is with respect to P(X|theta). Of course, that does not apply to the dervative :-D. Tomixdf (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I figured that was it. Cheers, --Zvika (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something similar to what you want was my initial intention with Famous Theorems of Mathematics but the resultant turned out to be a big mess! In my experience such a repository of proofs is not a textbook per se, and does not qualify to be a wikibook unless systematically organized so that it is a comprehensive whole for a reader. I personally think the only really practical option would be to start a proof wiki. Regards-Shahab (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is really a shame since it would have been best to keep all these proofs within a Wikimedia project. Would transferring a bunch of unrelated proofs to Wikibooks really cause such an uproar among Wikibooks people, do you think? --Zvika (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be a problem as long as the proofs are properly organized to make the collection look like some sort of proof glossary. In my experience that is not an easy task. Feel free to take up the challenge. Also see this link for some related information. You can also start a proof wiki within wikimedia by requesting one here.Regards-Shahab (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the policy for creating new wikis is intended for something bigger than what we (currently) have. We are currently talking about maybe several hundred proofs, and I doubt there will be sufficient enthusiasm for anyone to give monthly reports to the board, etc. So I think I will try to transfer some existing proofs to your book, and see what happens. --Zvika (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't believe that anyone on wikibooks other then me is monitoring the famous theorems of mathematics page. So it's likely that your additions will get unnoticed for some time by other contributors there. But as the original author of the book I certainly have a few reservations about adding proofs in that book without any categorization and in an unorganized fashion. Remember that wikibooks is about books, not about repositories. A book is supposed to have a compactness which your efforts might destroy(no disrespect intended). Also if other Wik.ipedia.Prons don't take an interest in adding proofs there, which I seriously believe is going to be the case, then the resultant module will be neither here nor there.(Back when I started the book with the name The Book of Mathematical proofs, I posted a suggestion on Wik.ipedia.Pro regarding posting of proofs there, but many Wik.ipedia.Prons quite rightly pointed out the practical problem of the giganticity of such a task and the resultant mess the book was likely to become.) I still believe that the best option would be to start a proof wiki. If no one is sufficiently interested in taking the lead then people can add proofs on an existing proofwiki here, and a template can be added in the relevant articles linking to that proof. Even if its not part of wikimedia, the purpose to the reader will be served, and that's what is really important. Another option, though not a better one, would be to add proofs on wikiversity, which is at least supposed to contain educational material and not books.

P.S. I too tried to add a proof on the existence of logarithm page once, it is at present on Talk:Logarithm. If you do work out some solution towards this whole issue please include that proof as well. Thanks and regards-Shahab (talk) 08:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you elect to use rollback on this edit? It doesn't appear to be vandalism. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. The article didn't exist in Bicol Central when I checked, apparently because of a database lag (it was only created shortly before), so I thought someone was just playing around. Will be more careful next time. --Zvika (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you available to do a an informal peer review of Ethernet? --Kvng (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I will have time for this, sorry. --Zvika (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zvika. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wik.ipedia.Pro cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

|}

You are invited to comment on the following probability-related RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Missing Wik.ipedia.Prons. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wik.ipedia.Pro arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wik.ipedia.Pro arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zvika. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wik.ipedia.Pro 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zvika. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wik.ipedia.Pro 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zvika. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wik.ipedia.Pro 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 Wik.ipedia.Pro 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 2019 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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 Wik.ipedia.Pro 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 2021 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) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Vegetation condition index, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wik.ipedia.Pro). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wik.ipedia.Pro's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zvika. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Vegetation condition index, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wik.ipedia.Pro. FireflyBot (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zvika. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Vegetation condition index".

In accordance with our policy that Wik.ipedia.Pro is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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 Wik.ipedia.Pro, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Pythagoras's theorem proof (rational trigonometry) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 9 § Pythagoras's theorem proof (rational trigonometry) until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 05:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Zvika. Thanks for adding a source to Ellipse#General ellipse. Unfortunately the equation provided at Mathworld is not actually correct (it typically gives an angle to the minor axis instead of the major axis). I swapped it out for the simpler and more legible ${\textstyle \theta ={\tfrac {1}{2}}\operatorname {atan2} (-B,\,C-A).}$ You can see how this works at https://www.desmos.com/calculator/xfgiydfi2b (if you type any of the previous variants into that calculator view, you can compare them). –jacobolus (t) 19:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jacobulus! I agree this formula is correct and much cleaner. --Zvika (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Zvika (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 147.235.214.243. Have been editing WP for a while from this computer, and suddenly got this message. Thank you 🙏 Zvika (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed proxies: NETNUT_PROXY (RESIDENTIAL), ABCPROXY_PROXY (MALWARE) Yamla (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi Yamla, I am trying to understand what I am supposed to do given this situation. It appears I can't edit even though I'm signed in, and have done nothing wrong. I am not using an anonymizing proxy; the blocked IP address belongs to a large ISP. I spent a long time sifting through the documentation and was unable to figure out what my appropriate next step is. Could you please help me understand what the problem is or what I can do to be able to resume editing? Thanks! Zvika (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That IP address is running proxies. The ABCPROXY_PROXY is malware, meaning your computer or a previous computer at that IP address is infected with malware. You either need to switch to an IP address that is not running proxies or you need to cause the proxies on that IP address to stop. As to the specifics, though, that is beyond our ability to direct you. --Yamla (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response Yamla. IIUC, the block you placed includes a /22 subnet mask, meaning that over 1000 IP addresses are included, apparently mine is one of them. Is the claim that all of those computers are infected? Also, even if those IP addresses are blocked, shouldn't I be able to edit when signed in? Thanks, Zvika (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These IP addresses are being used as proxies. This applies to a random sample of a significant number of addresses that I checked and definitely applies to this one. If you find a specific example of one that does not run proxies, please let me know. And no, logged-in users are not generally permitted to use IP addresses running proxies. --Yamla (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I hadn't realised the IP address range block was placed by me. If I had, I wouldn't have reviewed your unblock request. You were already free to make a new request and a different admin will review it. I'm only suggesting this as a possibility in case you think I've acted incorrectly. I still strongly suggest you need to move to a different, uninfected IP address (or at least, one not running a proxy). --Yamla (talk) 11:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yamla.. but TBH I'm somewhat at a loss as to what I'm supposed to do. This IP is provided by my ISP; I'm not sure how to change it, and if I did, I would most likely end up with an IP in the same subnet. The fact that many IPs from this subnet are infected implies that the problem is not on my computer. It's not clear to me why I can't edit if I'm signed in, as seems to be implied by the documentation (specifically the answer to Question 8 here). --Zvika (talk) 12:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]