User talk:Stevenj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Archived discussions: User talk:Stevenj/old, User talk:Stevenj/old2

Contents

[edit] hi steve from øWaldo.

maybe we should just then delete everything of mine because it's just getting too much trouble around here. I put the things up and then they just get deleted. because it's me, thaty's why it happens. I finally figured out about here, I donated money but it does not matter they just keep deleting all my puctures and all the things that I write. I'm going to eat lunch. thjanks! øWaldo.

All you need to do is to attach an appropriate copyright tag, instead of making up your own license. It's really not that hard. —Steven G. Johnson 23:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PUI

Can you help answer to my posting here? Evrik still doesn't get it *sigh* --Jiang 06:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Peace Offering
Can we set aside our difference and work together? --evrik 19:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC).
Evrik, I have no problem working together, but we should do it within established WP policy. That means, when an image is listed on PUI, you don't unilaterally remove tags or remove its listing while it is still under dispute. Instead, you leave the tags on, and discuss it in a reasonable manner in WP:PUI (or in this case, in the sub-page). As long as you are willing to do this, I have no problems. —Steven G. Johnson 21:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your revert at Significand

Hey, I noticed you reverted my work at significand. Your edit note says something about the difference between "thinking of the significand as an integer or a fraction". But.. my edit was not meant to address that, and that was a very tiny part of my edit. Can you please explain why you did a fullscale revert of all my work? Fresheneesz 06:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edit centered around this supposed distinction, introducing "two" definitions for the significand; I replied in Talk. If you are just learning about a topic for the first time, you should probably be cautious about making major changes in articles that have been around for a while. —Steven G. Johnson 17:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Hello, I have a question. What can I do to stop vandalism on a certain page? There is always someone going in and contributing nothing and just vandalising the page. The page in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma_Lambda_Beta ... It has been through a lot and it's not just one IP doing the damage. I always try to counter vandalize and revert edits when I see them on any page and it just seems that this page is targeted a lot. Anything you can do to allow only registered users to edit the page? Nguerrero03 19:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Post a request for help on Wikipedia:Requests for investigation. Realize, however, that many pages receive light vandalism a few times per day, and this is not usually considered serious enough to warrant page protection. Editors are expected to revert as needed. —Steven G. Johnson 00:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation for atan formula

Hiya Steve! Er, weren't you the one that suggested that the number of formulas be cut back? P=) As for a citation, that is the typical formula used for geodetic/planetodetic formulation, such as used by Bowring, Sodano and (the current benchmark) Vincenty (Eq.s 14-16). ~Kaimbridge~ 17:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

By asking for a citation, I'm not claiming that the formula is wrong. After all, as you say, I advocated including that formula myself. I'm just saying that it needs a source to help readers find more information, etcetera, and also to provide WP:Verifiability for the statements on numerical accuracy. —Steven G. Johnson 17:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, all one has to do is try some examples and see that it is verifiable! P=) Serious, though, the concept itself, central angle, here \Delta\sigma\,\!, is well established——this article (Great circle distance) just uses it. Other than a quick heads-up about the possible "small angle error", any in-depth analysis should probably go to the central angle article.
Verifing the numerical accuracy under rounding requires proper numerical analysis to do seriously, and is not just a matter of trying a few examples. Yes, you can write a program to do experiments like I did, but that is verging on original research. It would be better to cite a published source discussing the roundoff error of the different formulae. (Since it is well established, it shouldn't be hard to find a published reference, right?) And I wasn't suggesting that such analysis go into the article...I was just suggesting a citation. I don't understand why you are digging in your heels. —Steven G. Johnson 22:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not (see below).
(Unfortunately, the Vincenty paper is not very useful as a reference here because, first, it is mainly focused on the more general elliptical case; second, it doesn't include any derivations, although it has references thereto; and third, it doesn't seem to discuss purely numerical error.) —Steven G. Johnson 17:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Right, but this paper is well established in geodetic circles (meaning peers) and, while written for the more complicated ellipsoidal case, all one has to do is let a = b and you have the globoidal ("spherical") valuation. ~Kaimbridge~ 18:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC) (BTW, is your linkstale or is just the server down?)
(Nevermind, it's working now! P=)
Obviously the sphere is a special case of the ellipsoid, but the discussions of the latter are rather overly complicated if all you want is the former. And the Vincenty paper still does not discuss rounding error and so it is not a good source for why this particular great-circle formula is better than others. And it doesn't include a derivation. So while it is a reference vouching for the validity of formula in exact arithmetic, it seems far from ideal as a source to point readers to in this context.
Again, I'm not challenging the correctness of the formula, or its numerical accuracy—I've checked its accuracy myself, as you well know. But it's Wikipedia policy, not to mention good scholarly practice, to cite sources for information (especially for formulae like this, and statements that one formula is more accurate than another under rounding, that are neither obvious nor trivial to derive). Why do you have a problem with this? —Steven G. Johnson 22:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Alright, maybe I'm just (mis)reading the request for "citation" as flashing lights and sirens questioning its validity (thus my stressing Vincenty's paper). Isn't there a better template, emphasizing that a citation, featuring background analysis, would help improve the article? Again, I've got no objection to adding more sources, I just interpreted the citation request as, yes, a challenge to the validity of the equation itself (and, since the tangent's denominator equals the well known cosine for sides equation, that would mean the numerator must equal a corresponding sine equivalent).
The best thing is just to find a good source in the literature discussing the rounding error. Why should that be hard? It was easy to find such sources for the haversine formula. —Steven G. Johnson 01:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
(I'm not sure why the central angle article is a better place for this stuff. It seems a bit redundant to me.)
Because the central angle is the equation that is the focus of the comparisons and resultant citation request, Great circle distance just uses it. Again, no big objection, it just seems, IMHO, it would be more appropriate to be in central angle. ~Kaimbridge~ 00:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Venetian chastity belt

The disclaimer at Image:Chastity_belt_in_Hamburg.jpg applies. AnonMoos 11:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Do you have anything to add here? (It was your warning that tipped me off to the extent of the problem in the first place.) --KSmrqT 09:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Velociraptor-Buitreraptor

Well done on the image - I was just about to upload it to Velociraptor as well, when you had beaten me to it, by a few seconds. - Ballista 05:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi & bad luck - this also fooled me but I'm no expert on skeleton identification. Problem is, museum labels can be out of date and fail to keep up with renaming. There is only one sp. of Veloci- now, so your image should probably now carry a new name but I don't know what - I was similarly caught by Velociraptor/Bambiraptor, in the Oxford University Museum of Natural History. I'll ask Dragon Helm (who did the reversion & presumably knows the correct name). We can then alter the Buitreraptor image caption, likewise & upload to the correct article. - Ballista 04:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I note your great image has been dubbed Deinonychus now, instead of Velociraptor. This was going to be the most likely final decision, and the pictures to which Dragon Helm has linked, on his talk page, make compelling evidence. You may want to awit response from the museum or just upload to Deinonychus, now, anyway. That article would benefit greatly. Whatever, the image file should also be altered, once you have sufficient info to satisfy you as to correct name. - Ballista 04:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOR

Would you be willing to comment, here: [1]Slrubenstein | Talk 15:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] statistical inference

Hello. This article is (still) a mess, and I'll be looking at it further in coming days. I've tagged it for cleanup. Thanks for pointing this out. Michael Hardy 01:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: Another issue:

[edit] "Institute Professor" nominated for deletion

The article titled Institute Professor has been nominated for deletion by user:Kane5187, who says not all of the 10-or-12-or-so Institute Professors are notable. This while many MIT professors who are not Institute Professors have Wikipedia articles and are universally considered notable (and so do most of the Institute Professors). Please opine at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute Professor. Michael Hardy 01:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US government portraits

Greetings. Back in May, you commented at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/US government portraits. The issue has lain dormant for over two months, and is still unresolved. I have attempted to summarize the findings of fact, in the hopes of resolving this debate. Your comments here would be welcome. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] up-to-date information

After this edit, I wondered if my information was up to date. Probably you would know. Michael Hardy 22:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. See here for the current freshman grading policy. —Steven G. Johnson 00:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOR

You know, you and I do not always agree but I think we handle our disagreements in a civil way and what is more important it is always evident to me that you are tying to be constructive. Thanks to your participation I thought we were making progress in revising one paragraph of the policy into one that more people liked more.

The John Awbrey added this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Son_Of_Suggestion Do you see in this the constructive spirit of engagement that I see in your comments? I don´t. On the contrary it seems only to disrupt or undermine the progress we were making, thanks to you and WAS and GBacchus.

Am I off base? Am I out of line? Or is Awbery? Perhaps you can comment on his suggestion. Thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 03:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radiation Pattern

Hi Steve. Re. Your gave a more general definition...antennas, fiber ends, LEDs, etcetera are all just instances of the same thing (radiation pattern), I couldn't agree more. I would have rewritten this bit myself, but was too timid to obliterate the only pre-existing section before I'd contributed something myself.

Re. Proof - note that this proof is only an approximation for one special case of reciprocity - right again; it should have occurred to me that a reader could stumble into this section when looking for a proof of the reciprocity theorem. But... I reckon the reciprocity result for antennas (i.e. receiving pattern = radiation pattern), is a consequence of the reciprocity theorem rather than a special instance of it. The argument is; for two antennas (far apart or close together), the circuit version of the reciprocity theorem applies exactly. Then if the antennas are far enough apart to be considered independent, then this implies something about a single antenna. Also, although this involves an approximation for finite separation, the radiation pattern is the far field limit (lim r → inf.), so the result isn't really an approximation (I could have made this clearer). --catslash 18:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a consequence. But even the analysis of the consequence, in that section, is limited to the case of far separation in a homogeneous medium. Note that it is perfectly possible to use an antenna in the near field as well and the same theorem applies.
I didn't look closely at the proof in radiation pattern. If the proof there is really taking the reciprocity theorem as a given and just looking at the consequence, I don't understand why it has to be so long. It seems like derivation, starting from Lorentz reciprocity, should only take a couple of lines. —Steven G. Johnson 01:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
See my comments in Talk:Radiation pattern. —Steven G. Johnson 01:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Incorrect normalization in Image:Synthesis square.gif

Thanks for pointing that out. It is now fixed :) ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 19:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Synthesis square.gif

[edit] NOR again

I am trying to get things moving - step by step - on the primary/secondary sources issue. Since you had been an active participant in this discussion I think you should check in again, here, [2]. I have broken my own proposed edits into four steps. We pretty much achieved consensus on step one and made an edit, the discussion now is centered on step two. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rodriguez formula

I don't know whether Orthogonal polynomials is on your watchlist -- it probably is. See my recent note on the talk page about Rodriguez formula. While writing it, it occurred to me that you might be able to shed some light on this. Can you? Thanks. William Ackerman 15:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOR

I don't want the talk page to get too convoluted so I am taking this point here. Do you really believe the probvlem with primary sources has nothing to do with NPOV? I am not saying this is the only problem, but I think it is definitely one problem and one reason for the whole NOR policy, because original research is a way for an editor to get his or her own POV into an article. We should not be surprised that one policy is connected to another. i am not subordinating NOR to NPOV and I repeat I do not think NPOV is the ONLY problem with NOR, but do you really see no connection to NPOV? As to your second point, you are right that anything concerning one kind of source is implictly about the other kinds. i was wrong to suggest otherwise. That said, I think it makes sense to make a claim about the use of primary sources before making any claims about secondary sources (just cause it seems natural to me, primary before secondary). This said, do you think you could craft a middle ground between my points and your initial suggestion? I am not demanding you support what I proposed and if others support your version I will go along, I just wonder (1) if my comments here make sense to you and (2) if you might consider revising your initial proposal in response to my comments. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the primary problem with primary sources has to do with the fact that they are easily misinterpreted by well-meaning non-specialists, are not accessible to most readers, and are prone to OR. These facts, to me, seem clear and fairly non-controversial and are easily explained.—Steven G. Johnson 20:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really disagree with your claim, but I do think it is a bad foundation for the policy. The consequence of this fact logically could be that expert editors be allowed to use primary sources and non-expert editors can't. Your phrasing invites this interpretation. But really, NOR should not distinguish between expert and non-expert editors and there should be one policy for everyone. The justification for restricting the use of primary sources must apply to expert editors who are capable of interpreting them properly, and not just to non-expert editors. The only justification I can think of (aside from being circular, i.e. saying usiing primary sources violates NOR because it constitutes OR, a tautology) is that even if a specialist is capable of interpreting primary sources properly in so doing s/he would be introducing his or her own interpretation (i.e. POV) into the article, thus violation NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether primary source material is more prone to bias ("POV") is much less clear and more controversial---many editors would argue that primary sources are the raw data, whereas secondary sources present interpretations and usually have some specific point of view. It's certainly very easy to find slanted secondary sources. Making such an objection to primary sources on the policy page, therefore, is asking for endless flamewars. It is much better to let editors deal with NPOV issues on a case-by-case basis, I think. —Steven G. Johnson 20:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

But this is my point precisely. Because secondary sources DEFINITELY have some POV, we can add them to articles without violating NPOV because when we add the source, we do so in a way that clearly identifies the POV. NPOV does not mean articles must explude POVS, it means (1) editors POV can't go in and (2) POVS that are included (drawn from secondary sources, almost invariably) must be clearly identified. NPOV never prohibits "slanted" secondary sources, it only insists that the slant be properly identified. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding whether it should be expressed as a "preference" for secondary sources or a "discouragement" of primary sources, I don't have strong feelings. However, I would suggest that framing things in positive terms is almost always more productive and less prone to offend. —Steven G. Johnson 20:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I do not object, I just think primary should go begfore secondary Slrubenstein | Talk 21:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve, I put in Wjhonson's short form. However, I agree with you that it would be an imporvement to provide the justification. But the more I think about it, the more strongly I believe it has to do with NPOV: when an editor uses primary sources to forward a new synthesis, analysis, interpretation, or explanation he or she is necessarily introducing his or her own POV which is forbidden. When an editor uses secondary sources the editor is not inserting his or her own views (necessarily) and can identify the view of the secondary source and s/he or others can look for secondary sources that reflect other points of view, all complying with NPOV. Please consider this. If you really reject my argument, well, I tried ... but if this makes any sense to you perhaps we can work together to come up with a good rationale to add to the policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] th:DCT

Regarding your comment of DCT on th wiki ThaiDCT

- I made corrections according to your comment of the images.

- It's a bit misleading using odd/even length transformation. It was not to mean the length of the data itself, but the length of the data + virtual extension. I added an explanation about the length in the content.

Thanks for the commments. Please let me know if there is any other correction or suggestion. BTW: Do you read Thai? :) ไร้สติ

Thanks for your quick response! The figures look great now. I would suggest uploading them (correctly named) to the Wikimedia commons so that the other Wikipedias can use them. Ideally, upload them in SVG format instead of as PNG, since they are vector graphics. (I must confess that I don't read Thai; in this case the math and the figures were clear enough that I didn't have to.) —Steven G. Johnson 15:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace

Hi there. You commented extensively on this page here during its review period. It's at decision time regarding whether its FA status should be removed. If you'd like to post a comment on its present condition, please do so soon. Cheers, Marskell 18:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asymptotic notations

I find your recent redirections at asymptotic notation and Landau notation to be over-confident. For one thing, I have been trying to check whether the Big O notation article contains everything in the redirected pages. It seems not to define f ~ g, which therefore means your statement on the content is wrong.

For another, the choice of page title is not the best. 'Big O' is just one of several notations used. It would be more in accordance with the way pages are named to make 'asymptotic analysis', the more general term, the title of a combined page. You in any case seem to have missed the point that asymptotic analysis is a subject with a few branches, which was clearly set out on the page you redirected.

Charles Matthews 10:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I missed the f ~ g; I've added it back. I'm not sure why you think I've "missed the point that asymptotic analysis is a subject with a few branches". The merged page clearly describes the application to several areas besides computational complexity. I'm glad you pointed out that I missed two sentences, but this is an exception that proves the rule—there was almost total overlap between the articles prior to merge.
Regarding whether the main page title should be "Big O notation" or "Asymptotic notation", this can be debated now that it is merged. I agree that "Asymptotic notation" seems a more general title. On the other hand, in practice "Big O notation" seems to be used to refer to all five asymptotic notations in addition to O(...), and seems a more popular term. The Big O notation page certainly received far more attention on Wikipedia than either asymptotic notation or Landau notation, which is why I merged in the direction I did.
But, if people want to rename to asymptotic notation, I won't oppose. The main point is that we shouldn't have three pages on Wikipedia that are almost entirely redundant, which was the situation previously.
—Steven G. Johnson 15:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
If you want to rename, please comment on Talk:Big O notation. —Steven G. Johnson 15:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GNU/Linux

I saw that you reverted the GNU/Linux disambiguation page back to the redirect to Linux.

  • Why do you think that the correct place to discuss an edit of a redirect is the target page rather than the edited page? I think it would be best to discuss it at GNU/Linux. Please tell me what you think.
Because most people editing this topic (or any topic) watch the target page; hardly anyone watches the redirect pages. Discussing at the redirect page means that you are omitting most of the interested editors. —Steven G. Johnson 18:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I will put a note on talk:Linux directing anyone with an interest in the GNU/Linux page to talk:GNU/Linux. That way, (a) anyone who wants to track this particular issue can put it on the watchlist, and (b) all discussion actually relating to the page being edited can be found on its own talk page. I hope that resolves your concern. -- Alan McBeth 19:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Procedurally, I think it would be best to adopt the 22:26, 26 December 2005 version of GNU/Linux during discussion, since it was the last version with broad support (see Talk:Gnu/linux). If you agree, please revert it or let me know and I will.

-- Alan McBeth 05:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You only think it has broad support because you're looking at a small self-selected group of editors who are watching a Talk page on a redirect. —Steven G. Johnson 18:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
This is the way Wikipedia always works--all editors of a given page are self-selected. I meant "broad support" only in the context of those editors who discussed the issue on the page in question. Any theory that they weren't representative of a hypothetical larger group may be best tested by a larger group discussion. Until then, I think their consensus should carry more weight than subsequent unilateral actions. Which do you think should carry more weight? -- Alan McBeth 19:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The consensus that should carry more weight is the one on Talk:Linux, which is watched by all editors who are interested in editing the article on Linux-based operating systems. A Talk page on a redirect is a backwater. —Steven G. Johnson 23:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you point out which consensus you're referring to? Thanks. -- Alan McBeth 23:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Pratt

Hi Steve from Andy Pratt The quickness of your pounce reminds me of my cat. If you are interested my memoir is now available at www.xlibris.com - go to bookstore and search for Andy Pratt. No problem Andy Pratt

[edit] Photonic Crystals

Your reversion was not a minor edit. So I reverted it. Dtneilson 06:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding "Britney Spear's guide to photonic crystals" as a reference for the photonic crystal page is not a useful contribution as a reputable source to direct readers to. I removed it again. —Steven G. Johnson 16:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Have you looked at the site? You say it's not reputable but if you look at the about [3] you will that the creator who is a doctoral student at a reputable university intends it to be an educational site. I hope you don't disregard it just because it has Britney's name in it and that it's not your style. Dtneilson 06:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I'm familiar with the site, ever since it was just "Britney Spears guide to semiconductor physics", and I know that it attempts to convey serious information despite the goofy name. However, the creator obviously has no special expertise in photonic crystals; that section of the site reads like a review by a well-meaning doctoral student who has read a few papers on the subject but hasn't completely comprehended it. —Steven G. Johnson 20:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GNU/Linux IPA Pronunciation

Heya. I can change it if you like but the article shows it both ways, in the top line of that section it shows it pronounced as (I'm Australian if you can imagine this without IPA as you've said you can't view it) "noo linucks" and the last line says stallman pronounces it "gah-noo" making it "gah-noo slash linucks" or "gah-noo linucks". Would you like me to change the top line or change "Given that Stallman pronounces GNU as gəˈnu" to "Given that Stallman uses the standard American English pronunciation of GNU (IPA for gah-noo)"? •Elomis• 06:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the GNU project, since 1985 [4], has explicitly defined its name as being pronounced with a hard "g" ("guh-noo"), I think we should give priority to this pronunciation. And in any case, the particular article we're discussing is talking specifically about Stallman's suggested pronunciation. This has nothing to do with how the animal's name is pronounced in American English (Americans use "noo" or "nyoo" for the animal, although there is a famous Muppet skit pronouncing it with a hard "g" as a joke). GNU is a specific organization, and has some authority to define its own name. —Steven G. Johnson 06:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've updated the IPA. Nice catch. •Elomis• 21:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I apologize for the inadequate source tags on some of my images. I will try to bring these images within Wikipedia guidelines. My user name is a bit of a misnomer in regards to Wikipedia; I devote countless hours to writing well-referenced articles, fighting vandalism and generally trying to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Its only in regards to these photos that I’ve been sloppy. I have updated the tag for “Image:Eldridge.jpg”. Have I met minimum standards? HouseOfScandal 05:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/e/User_talk%7EStevenj_e751.html"