User talk:MRaccoon

MRaccoon, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi MRaccoon! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Missvain (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the robot message, thanks. --MRaccoon (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HostBot: @Missvain: Here is a brief feedback about this beginner's initial trouble at recognizing the Treehouse as a discussion forum.

As I wrote below, I am pretty much the discussion type. My feeling is that the most useful kind if interaction is discussion, i.e. the kind of interaction where you can ask follow-up questions, where you can ask for clarification, and where you do not interact with one single "expert" only, but where anyone can jump in and give their thoughts.

When I looked at the Teahouse first (before posting on it), my first impression was that it looked like a sort of "Help Desk", with one-way interaction with one "expert" only (ask a question, get an answer, end). I.e. not like a place where back-and-forth discussions can take place and where anyone can jump in and contribute. And therefore my first impression was that the Teahouse was not exactly what I was looking for.

However, after now having interacted a bit on the Teahouse, I am finding that really it is much more like a discussion forum than like a help desk where you interact only with one "expert". Also, I have now discovered (with the help of w.carter) that it seems that all Talk pages anywhere on Wikipedia are pretty much like discussion forums.

So all this abundantly covers my wish for discussion forums. To summarize: I think what caused my initial misinterpretation of the Teahouse is that (in how it is advertized in the Hostbot invitation posting on my user talk page, and on the "front page" of the Teahouse itself) it seems to be presented more as a "Help Desk" than as as a discussion forum. I guess that a help desk is probably what 90% of the new users are looking for. But with me, the presentation as a help desk created a slight misinterpretation. --MRaccoon (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, the nature of the Teahouse is disclosed in the name "Teahouse" which is described by the WP as this: "... tea houses often serve as centers of social interaction." We interpret words very literary here (what kind of encyclopedia would we be otherwise ). So for a formal "Help desk" there is the forum Wikipedia:Help desk that functions in the way you described above. And if you are looking for other places to hang out and discuss things, there are also the different sections of the Wikipedia:Village pump (our version of "hanging around the water cooler". More hangouts can be found at Wikipedia:Community portal.

Btw, when you ping or mention an editor, don't use the entire code from a signature, just write the name like mine W.carter. Copying my entire signature makes it look as if I had signed it myself, an equivalent of you "forging" my signature IRL. Just another little Wiki etiquette. Best, w.carter-Talk 14:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: Thanks for the hint about the "signature". Copying in your original formatting I had intended only playfully and as politeness; any association with forging had not crossed my mind. But since it's (apparently) against Wikipedia etiquette, I will leave off.

Of course I saw the description "often serve as centers of social interaction", but that hint that it could be a discussion forum then got overridden in my perception by the "help desk"-like elements in the presentation. I had not known of the existence of Wikipedia:Help desk, so the information inherent in the contrast between it and the Teahouse was not part of my perception.

Please note that with my comment on the Teahouse I am not trying to criticize, only to feedback and through that to be of help. If it's not helpful, then just ignore it.

Thanks for the hint about the Village Pump and the Community Portal. I guess the sheer number of different types of forums and committees and projects is taking me just a minute getting used to. I hope that my inclination to write and discuss -- even before I put in much time exhaustively researching and reading through all possible sources of information -- doesn't irritate too much. I would like to repeat that your explanation that all Talk pages pretty much work like discussion forums has been very useful for me to get to understand the way Wikipedia works. Any your pointing me to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics has been genuinely useful towards advancing the Montgomery thing.

What is the etiquette of that cool-looking {{od|N}} macro that you used there (and that I also saw used by others on the Teahouse) (and whose function is obviously to move a deeply-indented discussion back N indents towards the left margin)? Can anyone use it basically freely (I obviously understand that one only uses it in moderation), or is there etiquette that restricts its usage? --MRaccoon (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anything inside curly brackets is called a "template" here. Each such has a corresponding page. So if you write "Template:" before whatever is in the brackets, you come to that page. In this case Template:Od where you can read about it. Use it whenever you think that the indentation has gone too far for convenient reading. These things are mostly used by us nerds, some users ignore them completely. Another way of getting info around here is to simply write WP:Whatever you want info about, in the search box in the top right corner. You will be amazed by the number or help pages on the most quirky subject you can find doing that!

About participating in discussions here. Users who tend to have too many views on how things should be here without having made edits on articles in main space, or in other ways contributed to building the encyclopedia (which is what it's all about here), are generally ignored or frowned upon. You have to earn your stripes first. Start by doing whatever menial tasks you can to get into the editing. Things like correcting grammar or spelling in random articles (click on the "Random article" in the left column right under the Wiki logo) for instance are always appreciated. Many editors here do not have English as their first language, so you have an advantage there. This will also familiarize you with editing for your own (hopefully) upcoming articles.

w.carter-Talk 16:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: Got it about the Od thing, thanks.

On the "too many views", I reiterate that I was only trying to give information (to be used or to be left alone), namely the information how one particular new user perceived things during his time of getting acquainted with Wikipedia editing. My intention was very far from telling others "how things should be done". I have a strong dislike of back seat driving, and no intention of doing any myself. I regret it if somehow I gave that impression.

Of course, I understand that Wikipedia, same as any other group, works on the basis of building respect and status, and on the basis that those on higher status levels have more say. That is completely self-evident to me.

I am conscious that many people seem to regard "being a Wikipedia editor" as a kind of "career path", I mean not as a professional career of course but more like a game (or similar to how I imagine things would work in a martial arts sport), advancing from level to level.

I respect how you and other Wikipedians view things, but for me myself, building up status for myself within the Wikipedia community is decidedly not the end goal. Instead, my end goal is very simple and very limited, namely simply to make some small amount of improvements in one or a few articles (probably ones on more technical or mathematical subjects, and ones that have had little attention and are still very rough, and probably ones that deal with relatively obscure topics). Also, I will not have the time to take up "being a Wikipedian" as a general hobby pursuit. As to writing "my own" upcoming new articles on Wikipedia, experience shows that I am better suited to writing "original research" stuff (e.g. on my own website) than enyclopedic stuff; therefore writing or initiating new articles on Wikipedia is not (currently) on my list of goals. (My motivation for wanting to improve the Montgomery article was only that Wikipedia has been quite helpful to me in the past, and that I would if possible like to try to pay back in the small way that my time allows, namely by making small and limited improvements in obscure and unpolished/unfinished articles where maybe my knowledge of mathematics and similar topics can be put to use.)

Therefore, with respect, I decline the direction to begin by doing a lot of menial tasks. Instead, my intention is (apart from maybe engaging in discussion which is a thing I often like to do just for its own sake) to keep strictly on the path of editing one or a very few articles that caught my own attention and that in my own view I imagine I can contribute to. I.e. I will only put effort into a very few (existing) articles that I select myself. If that attitude is unwelcome on Wikipedia, then please inform me, and I will be out of here and bother you guys no longer. (My offer on the Teahouse to proofread for Maxim Pouska was just incidental, out of politeness for a "fellow German" I met by accident, and not out of a wish to develop myself into a specialist for general help with translation or proofreading on Wikipedia, which I will unfortunately not have time for.) --MRaccoon (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, MRaccoon, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! SD0001 (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

@SD0001: Thanks for the welcome. I do have a question: Does there exist a DISCUSSION FORUM about generally how to use wikipedia, i.e. about what are the practices and ethics of editing? I'm kind of the discussion type. I find it hard to know whether and to what extent I can just randomly edit around in existing articles. Thanks & with best regards --MRaccoon (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I have now found the Teahouse, which provides the general discussion forum I was looking for. --MRaccoon (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using PING (and USER:xxx links) in Talk page discussions, to trigger notifcations (Was: How to alert other editors)

When someone is posting on your talk page you get an automatic notification. That notification is a red square followed by a long yellow box (for most browsers and settings). In all other cases you have to alert the other editor in some way, either by "ping" or by mentioning them in a link. This will result in just the red box notification on that users pages. So even if you respond on your talk page you still have to alert the editor you are addressing. If you want to get hold of me you write {{ping|W.carter}} resulting in @W.carter: or [[User:W.carter|W.carter]] resulting in W.carter and sign with the four "squiggles" ~~~~ at the end and hit "Save". There are some more, but these are the basics. And when you ask something on someone's talk page, you also create a new section so your question don't get entangled in some other conversation. If you are having a conversation with another user on some page, it is also customary to add that page to your Watchlist in case someone in the discussion forgets to alert.

The policy is to leave an answer on the same page as the question, keep the conversation intact unless there is some reason for moving it elsewhere. Like complicated questions at the Teahouse can be continued on the appropriate talk page. Happy editing, w.carter-Talk 16:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @W.carter:. (Sorry, I had to test the "ping" immediately.)

In the past few days I've already seen a number of notifications "popping up" on my side.

Allow me to summarize the "ping" thing to check that I understood correctly:

The only people who always get automatic notification of edits in a page are the people who "watch" the page, plus (if the edit is done in a user's talk page) then the "owner" of that user talk page. (Incidentally: of course I had already clicked the "add this page to your watchlist" on the Talk:Montgomery reduction page.)

So therefore Wikipedia invented this "ping" thing. Which works as follows: when saving the edit, the software scans for the pattern {{ping|XXX}} and when it finds a match then sends a notification to user "XXX", including in that notification also the name of the person who made the edit (which is obviously why you wrote that when using "ping", the four squiggles have to be put in too).

Is that correct? If so, then I would guess that the etiquette on Wikipedia could be that your normally always use {{ping|XXX}} whenever you write a reply to someone on a talk page (other than the talk page of user XXX). Is that correct, or is the etiquette to add the "ping" not always but only in infrequent selected cases where there is some "urgency" that XXX sees your comment immediately?

With best regards, MRaccoon (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if I have understood your ponderings right. :) The only person who get the actual 'ping' is the one mentioned in the ping. Those who have the page on their watchlist only see that the page have been altered and get no notification. Correct, the ping + the squiggles of the sender combined during one edit activates the notification. It only works if both are made during the same edit and only the first time that is made. So if you copy a text the notification will not get activated.

Most of us use the 'ping' when we want to make sure that the recipient gets the message, but during some fast back and forth discussions people tend to forget or get lazy when it comes to the ping. Also some of us have our friends here on our watchlists constantly and may not bother with the pings. The Wikipedia is as imperfect as the rest of the world. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 17:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: Okay, I see, so the watchlist doesn't send notifications, it's merely a list that is automatically kept for you but that you have to go and inspect for yourself on your own initiative. Thanks for the clarification.

And thanks for your reply on the etiquette of using "ping". So you're saying that it is the general accepted usage that it's OK to use the "ping" in all your replying to people in talk pages (unless where the notification is superfluous). In that case I will then begin using "ping" freely, such as right now in this reply (where I include the "ping" merely for the purpose of notifying you that I have seen your comment).

Using these Talk pages -- using a wiki in this way as a discussion forum -- takes a minute getting used to, but it works and that is what counts. With best regards, MRaccoon (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Ping away!

A lot of newbies are surprised about what a social forum this really is. But as IRL, editors comes in all shapes and sizes, some are really chatty and some keep to themselves. You can learn a lot by simply browsing the talk pages of articles and editors in a "watch and learn" kind of way. The WP is a very transparent community where everything is in the open. Many users also tend to have some area of "expertise". Mine is guiding newbies and introducing them to the WP in an informal way. (Plus writing articles.) So no question is too silly to be asked. w.carter-Talk 19:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery modular multiplication

I had some time, so I asked my friend about Montgomery multiplication, and he explained it to me. I've rewritten the article so that it has a (what I think is) clearer explanation of what's going on. Could you take a look at it? Please feel free to make any adjustments or changes that you think are necessary. Ozob (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]