User talk:ALoan/Archive
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
edit User talk:ALoan Archives |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 |
|
|
• Archive to 11 February |
• Archive to 28 February |
• Archive to 28 February |
Contents |
[edit] Welcome
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!
Here are some tips to help you get started:
- If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
- Read the article describing how to edit a page and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
- When editing pages, use the preview button before submitting and try to fill in the summary box for every edit.
- Eventually, read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
- If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
- Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!
Good luck!
Jrdioko
P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
[edit] Cricket terminology
Why did you add links for all the items in Cricket Terminology? The ones I did were left unlinked quite deliberately as they were fully explained on that page. Bob Palin 22:44, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry - I envisaged this as a short description of each item with a link to a longer entry (much like a disambiguation page) rather than a list of definitions. In my defence, it has picked up some pages that already existed (four (cricket), for example) and some that should (such as carry the bat, county cricket, wide (cricket)) that I hope to add as and when.
- I accept that I have not entirely followed Wiki-style (for example, words, such as batsman are linked more than once) but I hope this is useful - if you are looking at one definition then you may want to go to the main page for another term without having to look up or down the list.
- Perhaps we should this discussion to Talk: cricket terminology. -- ALoan 10:27, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Energy and electromagnetic radiation
Hello, Aloan, could you please adapt energy and kinetic energy to include electromagnetic radiation? I don't feel certain enough to do so myself. Thanks in advance. Andries 19:39, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Math-ising
Hi ALoan, you might like to know that its usual not to use <math> for inline formulae, unless it's necessary. It looks poor when rendered, and is hard to read on text-based browsers. See Wikipedia:TeX markup and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics#Typesetting of mathematical formulas. -- DrBob
- Yep, this was regarding photon. Thinking about it now, the policy makes less sense because of the way the TeX renderer will fall back to HTML for simple enough equations. And to be honest, if one day MathML becomes standard, it would be better to have all equations in the same format anyway. -- DrBob 16:42, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Transit of Venus
I don't object to your edits, in fact I approve of most of them. Feel free to edit away. This article is featured on the front page today, so it's only natural that lots of people will be editing it. -- 16:08, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Categorisation of Cricketers
Eek! I removed the "by skill" from those "English cricketers", etc. categories because it leads to a redundant category. Please check my diagram in Category_talk:Cricket. Note that an "English cricketers by skill" category would be a single category under "English cricketers" with nothing else in "English cricketers", so it's redundant. (Unless you have some other plan for the categorisation scheme.) --dmmaus 00:59, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Notations for logarithms
Since it's not part of the Halmos quote I won't be militant about it. If the Halmos quote had gone on a bit longer one would have seen him using "log" to mean natural log. Nowadays both "ln" and "log" are commonly understood by mathematicians to mean natural log. When Halmos wrote his autobiography, only about 20 years ago, he expressed contempt for the practice of many non-mathematicians of using "ln" rather than "log" for natural log, and said no mathematician had ever done that. By 1984, the date of publication, his claim was exaggerated. Nonetheless, it is still not unusual today to find mathematicians using "log" for natural log. Michael Hardy 20:01, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Green beret
Please see Talk:Green_BeretsPhilip Baird Shearer 21:18, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Galactic halo
Thanks for the work on the galactic halo article. I am not an astronomer but the work needed to be done! Gerry Lynch 11:14, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know about the front page - I wouldn't even have noticed! Gerry Lynch 12:06, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] VAT
Surely it should be value added tax, no hyphen, not value-added tax? See, for example: (1), (2), (3) -- ALoan 00:48, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
- According to the traditional rules pertaining to hyphens there should be a hyphen. But the traditional rules, still used in newspapers and magazines, and in many novels, are no longer used by advertising copy writiers nor by those who write labels on packages, nor by lots of educated English-speaking people. But I think its a good idea to follow the newspaper-and-magazine usage, for reasons that are explained in the article titled hyphen. Michael Hardy 21:40, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] List of cricketers
I received your message, to make articles for the List of cricketers and I've created lots of stubs with the category for the articles of the cricketers... :-) squash 06:18, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Discuss
Updated the cricket page. See your user page for a surprise. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:29, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry abt the goof up, please check your page now. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:34, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Dates
I was unaware that dates would have to be wikified each time. Very well, I shall keep to this policy henceforth. -- Emsworth 15:52, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Alan Keyes article
I'm glad there are folks like you who pay special attention to AOTW and PR. I haven't been involved much with either, and when I thought that this article needed more people looking at it, AOTW was the only alternative that happened to occur to me. You're right that Peer Review is more appropriate. Thanks for moving it. JamesMLane 22:35, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Exploding whale
Hi Aloan,
Excellent bit of info you added on the exploding whale! I was not aware of it :-)
I hope you don't mind, but I removed quite a few of the links. Too many links do not make a good article!
Ta bu shi da yu 14:32, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Just got your message... I, also, like links. I do believe that too many links tends to break up a piece of writing, however, and they should be well-placed and relevant to the article itself. You should note, for instance, with the whole boulder issue, I originally linked to it, but unlinked to it because I didn't feel it was strictly helpful to the article itself. I don't think adding too many links to an article just because you can is necessarily a good idea. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:49, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
