This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Thanks for making the dab move. I have leapt in to do some cleanup of the new dab page. Hope you approve. Colonel Warden ( talk) 11:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just a heads-up that a userbox you have on your pages (interest in conspiracy theories) has changed location to User:Sappho'd/Userboxes/Conspiracybutnoreptoids
Cheers. Drywontonmee ( talk) 07:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for improving the citations. However, it appears that you turned a excerpt from Kleppner and Kolenkow into a paraphrase. If it was originally an exact quote, I think it should be presented fully intact as an indented quotation; otherwise, if we want to present it as a paraphrase, the wording needs to be changed substantially to avoid plagiarism. MarcusMaximus ( talk) 20:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I was thrown off by that too, and I had to reread it many times before I concluded something was wrong. We can probably reword it so it is not misleading. MarcusMaximus ( talk) 19:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I went on Amazon and used the "search inside" feature on the Kleppner and Kolenkow textbook. I searched for all the key terms and phrases in the allegedly excerpted paragraph and I could not find it in the text. Maybe it is not a quotation from the book in question. MarcusMaximus ( talk) 08:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I notice that you created Image:ExtremeValueTheorem.png to illustrate the extreme value theorem in continuous function. This doesn't seem like a good example as written, though, because it's not even clear what function you intended to define. You wrote, "The high number of samples caused them to overlap, forming a continuous line." This is only true if the points have a finite size, as in the plot, but in this case it forms a contiguous area, not a line. Is the function supposed to be the maximum of the shaded area in the plot, or the linear interpolation of these points, or...? Moreover, it's rather confusing because your algorithm does not have a well-defined limit as you increase the number of samples.
Probably it would be better to use a different example.
—Steven G. Johnson ( talk) 23:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for making the recent update to the above page. κaτaʟaveno T C 00:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I have created a new template, {{
radic}}. I want to put it in
Category:Mathematical formatting templates. So I edited {{
radic/doc}} and added [[Category:Mathematical formatting templates]]
in the <includeonly>
section, but that's not working. What am I missing? --
A r m y 1 9 8 7 !
!
! 23:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I was moving one option at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals/Straw poll for view-deleted while you were voting, hopefully your vote ended up in the right place.... Please check just to make sure. Cheers! ~ JohnnyMrNinja 10:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that I appreciate the ample effort you've been putting in. I think this is getting closer to the FA standard each edit, no? — Anonymous Dissident Talk 13:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll give it a thorough read-over in the next day or two. -- SCZenz ( talk) 19:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 13:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Could you please restore the !votes I made, or revert the split. NOW. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:FAC guidelines, a peer review cannot be open for a featured article candidate at the same time: "Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived." Please close the peer review you have opened. I assure you, at any rate, that the sections relating to QCD are wholly accurate; my references are not incorrect, and there are plenty of references. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 00:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you please change your sig by either making it smaller or changing it completely since it fails the WP:SIGN policy..thanks ...-- Comet styles 00:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
A part of your edit [1] is questioned at Talk:Mathematical coincidence#Humourous? Really? Have you seen this way to tell it in a reliable source, and has it been called humorously or similar by a reliable source? PrimeHunter ( talk) 15:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
It looks like I have an issue with your edit of the electron article. Stoney was not actually the first to theorize the existince of elementary charges; that was done earlier by Laming and others. I think also that Stoney didn't actually postulate a particle, but rather a quantum of electrical charge. (See for example Histories of the Electron 2001.) This is the reason I didn't credit Stoney in the lead for the concept. There are several sources that confirm this, some of which I used in the article. This needs to be addressed, as the lead now no longer matches the history section.— RJH ( talk) 16:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
You might want to take a look at WP:Jargon concerning the use of terminology with which the reader may not be familiar.— RJH ( talk) 21:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Also please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Overlinking_and_underlinking. Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 21:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I have just scanned through your update of the Euler-Lagrange equation article and I like it. There are just a few points:
All in all the article looks much better now although in the other sections there are still remnants of previous versions which use notations which are not consistent with the more recent improvements. Bas Michielsen ( talk) 22:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello Army1987, just a few remarks on your latest edits of the E-L article:
What do you think? Bas Michielsen ( talk) 16:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for continuing the editing I started today. TomyDuby ( talk) 20:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you know that Liebniz discovered calculus before newtron, and that you cannot understand calculus without understanding the infinitesimal? Did you know that the limit comes from the infinitesimal and it is not the other way around as taught in textbooks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.28.20 ( talk) 06:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Liebniz discovered calculus, and Newton stole what he knew from Liebniz. You cannot understand calculus without understanding the infinitesimal, and your Italian school knows this. They know that, and they are just fucking with you. They do not want to help you understand anything, all they want to do is filter you, and test you and turn you into a goon. It means that the limit, is an aproximation, but you can actually know it, by thinking like liebniz. they just want to throw you into aproximations and models so they can control you, and make you a dumb slut. so you should drop out of school, and read liebniz. and realize that when you graduate you problably cant get a job anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.77.59 ( talk) 00:59, 7 November 2008
The Sewer Cover Barnstar | ||
You have been awarded the Sewer Cover Barnstar because you can read through anything. You don’t know the meaning of attention deficit disorder, laugh in the face of boredom, and are wasting your talents if you don’t become a patent examiner. |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Thanks for making the dab move. I have leapt in to do some cleanup of the new dab page. Hope you approve. Colonel Warden ( talk) 11:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just a heads-up that a userbox you have on your pages (interest in conspiracy theories) has changed location to User:Sappho'd/Userboxes/Conspiracybutnoreptoids
Cheers. Drywontonmee ( talk) 07:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for improving the citations. However, it appears that you turned a excerpt from Kleppner and Kolenkow into a paraphrase. If it was originally an exact quote, I think it should be presented fully intact as an indented quotation; otherwise, if we want to present it as a paraphrase, the wording needs to be changed substantially to avoid plagiarism. MarcusMaximus ( talk) 20:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I was thrown off by that too, and I had to reread it many times before I concluded something was wrong. We can probably reword it so it is not misleading. MarcusMaximus ( talk) 19:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I went on Amazon and used the "search inside" feature on the Kleppner and Kolenkow textbook. I searched for all the key terms and phrases in the allegedly excerpted paragraph and I could not find it in the text. Maybe it is not a quotation from the book in question. MarcusMaximus ( talk) 08:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I notice that you created Image:ExtremeValueTheorem.png to illustrate the extreme value theorem in continuous function. This doesn't seem like a good example as written, though, because it's not even clear what function you intended to define. You wrote, "The high number of samples caused them to overlap, forming a continuous line." This is only true if the points have a finite size, as in the plot, but in this case it forms a contiguous area, not a line. Is the function supposed to be the maximum of the shaded area in the plot, or the linear interpolation of these points, or...? Moreover, it's rather confusing because your algorithm does not have a well-defined limit as you increase the number of samples.
Probably it would be better to use a different example.
—Steven G. Johnson ( talk) 23:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for making the recent update to the above page. κaτaʟaveno T C 00:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I have created a new template, {{
radic}}. I want to put it in
Category:Mathematical formatting templates. So I edited {{
radic/doc}} and added [[Category:Mathematical formatting templates]]
in the <includeonly>
section, but that's not working. What am I missing? --
A r m y 1 9 8 7 !
!
! 23:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I was moving one option at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals/Straw poll for view-deleted while you were voting, hopefully your vote ended up in the right place.... Please check just to make sure. Cheers! ~ JohnnyMrNinja 10:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that I appreciate the ample effort you've been putting in. I think this is getting closer to the FA standard each edit, no? — Anonymous Dissident Talk 13:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll give it a thorough read-over in the next day or two. -- SCZenz ( talk) 19:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 13:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Could you please restore the !votes I made, or revert the split. NOW. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:FAC guidelines, a peer review cannot be open for a featured article candidate at the same time: "Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived." Please close the peer review you have opened. I assure you, at any rate, that the sections relating to QCD are wholly accurate; my references are not incorrect, and there are plenty of references. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 00:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you please change your sig by either making it smaller or changing it completely since it fails the WP:SIGN policy..thanks ...-- Comet styles 00:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
A part of your edit [1] is questioned at Talk:Mathematical coincidence#Humourous? Really? Have you seen this way to tell it in a reliable source, and has it been called humorously or similar by a reliable source? PrimeHunter ( talk) 15:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
It looks like I have an issue with your edit of the electron article. Stoney was not actually the first to theorize the existince of elementary charges; that was done earlier by Laming and others. I think also that Stoney didn't actually postulate a particle, but rather a quantum of electrical charge. (See for example Histories of the Electron 2001.) This is the reason I didn't credit Stoney in the lead for the concept. There are several sources that confirm this, some of which I used in the article. This needs to be addressed, as the lead now no longer matches the history section.— RJH ( talk) 16:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
You might want to take a look at WP:Jargon concerning the use of terminology with which the reader may not be familiar.— RJH ( talk) 21:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Also please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Overlinking_and_underlinking. Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 21:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I have just scanned through your update of the Euler-Lagrange equation article and I like it. There are just a few points:
All in all the article looks much better now although in the other sections there are still remnants of previous versions which use notations which are not consistent with the more recent improvements. Bas Michielsen ( talk) 22:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello Army1987, just a few remarks on your latest edits of the E-L article:
What do you think? Bas Michielsen ( talk) 16:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for continuing the editing I started today. TomyDuby ( talk) 20:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you know that Liebniz discovered calculus before newtron, and that you cannot understand calculus without understanding the infinitesimal? Did you know that the limit comes from the infinitesimal and it is not the other way around as taught in textbooks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.28.20 ( talk) 06:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Liebniz discovered calculus, and Newton stole what he knew from Liebniz. You cannot understand calculus without understanding the infinitesimal, and your Italian school knows this. They know that, and they are just fucking with you. They do not want to help you understand anything, all they want to do is filter you, and test you and turn you into a goon. It means that the limit, is an aproximation, but you can actually know it, by thinking like liebniz. they just want to throw you into aproximations and models so they can control you, and make you a dumb slut. so you should drop out of school, and read liebniz. and realize that when you graduate you problably cant get a job anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.77.59 ( talk) 00:59, 7 November 2008
The Sewer Cover Barnstar | ||
You have been awarded the Sewer Cover Barnstar because you can read through anything. You don’t know the meaning of attention deficit disorder, laugh in the face of boredom, and are wasting your talents if you don’t become a patent examiner. |