User talk:MatrixFrog

Why are you destroying all the links to the node disambiguation page?? Obviously they should be directed to the appropriate articles. The next-best thing after that is to link them to the disambiguation page, so that readers can find the appropriate pages and editors can edit to bypass the disambiguation page. Please fix the links you've broken. Michael Hardy 20:41, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I was directing them to the appropiate "node" articles. If I did something different on any particular page, it was entirely a mistake. Can you show me a particular example of a page where I did this? -MatrixFrog 05:25, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Node

Hey! Hopefully you get this in time, but I'm right in the middle of splitting Node, as you are. Let's talk before either of use goes any further. GPHemsley 06:52, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you for letting me know that. However it looks like the split is pretty much complete, except for creating a disambig page at Node which really only requires replacing the {split} with {disambig}. --MatrixFrog 06:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alright, well, I'll take care of that then. I've got a couple of questions, though. I was considering Node (networking) and Node (programming); what are your opinions on that? Also, I think Node (graph theory) would be better off left as a redirect, as the page it redirected to explained what a node was just as well. GPHemsley 07:02, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, networking and programming sounds good. How about this... you build those 2 pages and revert to the redirect how it was (which seemed bad at the time but is probably a good idea) and I will begin to try fixing some of the links to what is now a disambig. Okay? --MatrixFrog 07:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've already started on the disambig page. Let me finish it up, and then you can fiddle with it and clean up. Then I'll see what we'll do about those other three pages. GPHemsley 07:07, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I finished up with it. Node is now officially a disambiguation page. I did, however, decide to leave node (computer science). I see you've begun editing the link-to's, including two regarding this. If you see no problem with it, I'll go ahead and change them for you. Then I'll go about changing node (IT) to node (networking), as well as reverting the change from node (graph theory). GPHemsley 07:17, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I don't do a lot of work around here, so I just want to clarify something. Since node (graph theory) is a redirect, it would be silly to link to it directly, yes? Therefore whenever I see node used in the graph theory sense (ex. automorphism) i simply change "node" to "node" and make sure there is a link to graph theory nearby. Is this the correct way to go about it?

I'm not sure it matters either way. Both will accomplish the same thing, though linking directly to the redirect will at least give the reader a sense of what a node is, in case they can't tell that it's related to graph theory. Basically, I'd just do whatever's easiest. However, if no link to graph theory is nearby, you should most definitely make it a link to node (graph theory). GPHemsley 07:31, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Or even to node (graph theory) to save the server a few nanoseconds of having to redirect the user... --MatrixFrog 07:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Or, even better, node, if that's the way you want to go. GPHemsley 07:39, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Aw, dangit. We've got a problem. Purkinje fibers uses node in a way that we don't have a page for. We'll need to come up with one. GPHemsley 07:54, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Math error

Please! cos⁻¹(x) is not even close to being the same thing as (cos(x))⁻¹. The former is the arccosine function, not the reciprocal of the cosine function. Michael Hardy 20:10, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I knew that! I promise I did. I was very tired, and I wasn't thinking. My apologies. -MatrixFrog

Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week

I'm in the process of reviving Spanish Translation of the Week. Would you be interested in participating? I was also wondering if you are still working on translating Baja California Sur. — J3ff 04:11, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a ton of time nowadays, but yes, I am interested. I will try to check back with some regularity. I'm not really working on Baja California Sur at the moment either, but if no one else does it, I might go back to it. If you'd like to work on it yourself, please go right ahead. -MatrixFrog 03:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Article

Yes, I deleted that article. It did not assert any type of notability, which means it can be deleted. If you can show that it meets one of the guidelines at WP:MUSIC, especially with sources, it can be recreated and kept. Also, please don't change other peoples' signed comments on talk pages. The way the other person's comment was was fine, I'm not sure why you messed with it. Mak (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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 Wikipedia 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) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)