User talk:Fresheneesz/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< User talk:Fresheneesz

You have new messages (last change).

$ARCHIVE \!\$

1 Wipe One
2 Wipe two
3 Wipe three
4 Wipe four
5 Archive Five
6 Archive six

[edit] Wipe One

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Sam Spade 11:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Total relations

I have my doubt about your recent edit to Binary relation, in which you change the definition of total relation from "for all x and y in X it holds that xRy or yRx" to "for all x and y in X it holds that either xRy or yRx (but not both)". In my experience, the first definition is more common; in fact, I don't remember ever seeing the second one. Can you provide a reference in which the second definition is used? In any case, the next sentence, which says that "is greater than or equal to" is an example of a total relation, does not make sense after your change. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cross product

You cut a huge chuck off Cross product and marked that as a minor edit, without giving an edit summary. That is not good. Please go to talk:Cross product and explain your change. Thank you, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the edit I mention above was done rather carelessly. The first thing you cut is the wording talking about the volume of a parallelogram, but you left in however the formula for that volume, so that thing does not make any sense now. Also, you put two links at the bottom which are obviously misspelled. Taking into account that you did not put an edit summary, this edit amounts to basically vandalism. Please use more care. Thank you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] op amp edits

Please see Talk:Operational_amplifier_applications#Recent_edits_by_Fresheneesz

I'd open to discussion and i'll repost yours and my comments on the discussion page.

Ok I will respond on Talk:Operational amplifier applications. Just trying to get your attention. — Omegatron 20:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image licensing

You licensed Image:Opamp-noninverting.png as NoRightsReserved. Since it's a derivative work of my Image:Opampnoninverting.png, it must be released under the same license as mine. If I understand correctly, you can use any one of the three licenses I used ({{GFDL}}, {{cc-by-sa-1.0}}, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}), or just add the {{SelfBSA}} multi-license template, as I did. I honestly don't care as long as it's copyleft. — Omegatron 17:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure exactly what protocol there is to respond to messages posted on my user talk page - if this is the wrong way please tell me.

There's no protocol. This is fine. Most people put the talk pages they edit on their watchlists, so they'll see your response on there, but if you put it on their talk they'll definitely be notified of it.

Also, you mentioned me changing Tex to HTML - that I'll be happy to change back - but the reason I changed them in the first place was to lower the size of the pages (byte wise) and to put slightly less stress on the already stressed servers. It really isn't very significantly smaller, and I can see how it would hamper editing - so i'll change them back - sorry.

Ok, thanks. Generally, ease of editing is more important than server load, and the servers are mostly loaded down by things like editing pages or templates and generating new TeX images, not by serving already-generated images, so it's better to leave them as TeX, the way equations are used everywhere else on the WP.

Images created for wikipedia should be as open as the pages created for wikipedia - but thats not my call to enforce.

My images are actually more free than Wikipedia articles, since they're under more than just the GFDL, people can use them for non-GFDL projects, too. — Omegatron 20:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I got your message about your picutres being "more free", legally that may be true. But I licenced the modification so that anybody can upload a new version of it. I'm not exactly sure how that works, but the point is - people can upload a new version of the picture i put up, while people can't for your picture. If I could have, i would have uploaded a new version directly on that page. But I changed the licencing to one of the licences that you told me i should - and other people still can upload new versions. I did licence it correctly right? Fresheneesz 18:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Anyone can upload a new version of mine, too, including overwriting mine. Mine is licensed under not just the GFDL (like all of the article content on Wikipedia), but also CC. So you can pick either or both of those licenses to release derivative works under, which you did. I don't understand the problem. — Omegatron 19:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

On the page for your picture - both on wikipedia and on wikimedia - there is no link that enables someone to upload a new file. If there is one somewhere, its not in the place I've seen it before.

Just upload using the normal "Upload file" link that appears in the toolbox, and use the same file name. It will ask if you want to overwrite. Previous versions of the images are all stored on the server and can be reverted to. — Omegatron 21:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll remember that next time. But I think it would be much better for a clear link to exist that would allow someone to easily upload an updated file - someone who doesn't know the intricacies of wikipedia's uploading mechanism. Fresheneesz 21:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

How did you upload an image without clicking on the upload link?? And how does the licensing of the image affect whether you can upload or not? — Omegatron 22:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edits

Are you aware that all your recent edits are marked as minor edits? You've probably clicked "Mark all edits minor by default" by accident in Special:Preferences. — Omegatron 20:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wipe two

[edit] Images

How did you upload an image without clicking on the upload link?? And how does the licensing of the image affect whether you can upload or not? — Omegatron 22:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

- Well.. I didn't.. I created new pages with new files by using the "Upload file" link in the toolbox. But many image pages have an "Upload new version of this file" link that allows you to directly update the file without any doubts. Fresheneesz 02:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Aha! I never saw that link before. Since my images are on Wikimedia Commons, you'd have to go to the Commons description page first, and then you will see that link. — Omegatron 03:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

- alright, I actually still don't see that link. For example at [here] theres an "edit this file in an external application" link - but it just allows you to DL something (.. i dunno if its actually the file). The link I was talking about goes directly to an upload page with the file name already put in for you so that you know its replacing the correct file. Fresheneesz 01:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... I see "Upload a new version of this file" immediately above that link. I don't know.

The "Upload file" link always works, regardless. — Omegatron 14:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

- I think you have the link no matter what if you are the original uploader. But try going onto the picture's page without logging on. Fresheneesz 18:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I don't know. I always just use the regular upload link. — Omegatron 19:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd law vandalism

I have to go now, so please watch over the page. Don't worry about the "3 reverts rule" - it only applies for non-vandalism. If that guy keeps adding that flawed paragraph, just hit revert. :) Infinity0 00:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

If worse comes to the worst, you can always find an admin to lock the page and ban that IP. I don't know any personally, but there's bound to be a list somewhere. Try Wikipedia:Administrators? Infinity0 00:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress is even better as a place to announce vandals. Yes, if vandalism is persistent, it definitely must be announced there. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ideal gas law

Alright, this is becoming totally ridiculous - how can you possibly claim that the ideal gas law is an approximation to an ideal gas??? It's true that it is an approximation to real gasses but that is not what that formula on the page is about! Please stop editing pages that you do not understand! Talk about it on the discussion page if it's that big of a deal. - JustinWick 05:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I'll stop editing things that are unorthodox. But to answer your question, the ideal gas law is never used to find out things about an ideal gas - those don't exist. I will definately back off this page - cause i'm pissing people off. And I suppose my edit is more about the way the gas laws should be taught - and not their actual meaning. I'll quit messing with stuff like this. Fresheneesz 06:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes "orthodox" approaches can suck, however in this case it's made really clear that the ideal gas is a theoretical approximation to real life - better approximations are mentioned. - JustinWick 06:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Entropy/Disorder

Hello Fresheneesz. First let me say that I am absolutely in support of the WikiData idea (it is always good to question other's data processing methods, I've seen... some interesting data processing in my time on the MER mission. Anyways, I wanted to let you know that your edits to articles involving entropy seem rather misguided. It's really a very complex part of modern physics (and not always terribly easy for individuals to understand, even with a physics degree). I think for pages like that, the majority of editing affecting content (i.e. not typographical or structural) really should be performed by individuals with credentials in the subject (and familiarity). If you feel that there's something significant missing or incorrect on these articles, I would suggest using the talk pages, it is a much better approach IMHO because then if (as in this case) your ideas don't line up with accepted modern physics, someone there can explain why.

Science is never a finished process and we have much to learn in the years ahead, but Wikipedia is committed to reflecting the current consensus of scientific thought on any matter, "right" or "wrong." - JustinWick 19:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I apologize I'm on travel for the holidays for the next week so I'm a bit sporadic. I must admit that I am very much in disagreement with you about how best to present Entropy etc... I have several textbooks on the subject I plan ton consult in the next few days (I do need a refresher course on such thing) but I believe that it is very correct to state that entropy is, above and beyond anything else, a measurement of information content of a physical system. Yes, this is related to various free energies etc, however that is more of a "side effect" than anything else. This definition is nice for many reasons, however my favorite would be that it is unitless (well, I guess you could say it's in "bits" but that seems to be the basic unit of information in information theory). I think that defining it in terms of free energy is not only confusing (entropy is only one variable in determination of how much energy can be extracted from a system... carnot limits etc also apply). I don't have time at the moment to disect your edits (I'll get to that later) but, certainly you understand that even a maximally disorded system can have energy extracted from it with the use of a low temperature sink. I think this makes some of your edits rather erroneous (or at best, highly misleading). I also really do not see the point of tying everything back to "free energy" - sure it may be more "intuitive" for some at first, however it really hampers any actual use of the concept, as it's certainly not mathematically intuitive, and it has tenuous connections at best to micro statistical mechanics. I see you've been doing some edits on the disorder page, and I think it'd be best to define entropy in terms of information content of a system with links to that page, and free energy (where appropriate, rather than relentlessly). - JustinWick 07:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, entropy "exists" just as much as any other theoretical entity (say, an electron) "exists" - we can use the idea of this entity to predict the physical universe. No known "macroscopic" system has ever repeatably/reliably been observed to violate any of the laws of thermodynamics, so I do not see anything wrong with the concept. Of course, as systems become smaller, the second law of thermodynamics begins to break down - interestingly enough, this also happens as one's time scale goes up - if a nonexpanding universe lasted forever, it would spontaneously reorganize itself and infinite number of times, in every possible configuration, in violation of the second law of thermodynamics. This is, however, so incredibly unlikely during any human lifetime that I would not mind saying it is "impossible" because it's more likely that you would be struck by lightning, than for you to observe this kind of reversal on a macroscopic scale.

RE your comments about possible macroscopic violations of thermodynamics by humans, there are no scientifically accepted ways of doing this, even in theory. Certain forms of FTL or time travel (basically the same thing) are considered more plausible in theory than any "perpetual motion"/"free energy" (I mean energy for free, not the technical term in this case) machine anyone has ever devised. It is true that biological processes (such as evolution, on a large scale, or simple biological growth) can locally reduce entropy, but this is at the cost of increased entropy in other parts of the universe (such that the total is nondecreasing).

As for pedagogical introduction, it's true that S is intimately related with free energy, however that quantity already has its own designation. I firmly believe that entropy is best described in the information content of a system (minimum number of bits required to reconstruct a system precisely). I'm not sure that I agree with the order in which these two concepts are introduced in the article is the best - however this could simply be my own bias towards statistical mechanics (which is a much more accurate model of reality than thermodynamics). I think I'll mention this on the talk page, as I don't feel comfortable making sweeping changes to such an important article on this kind of thing myself.

Incidentally I think there is a bit too much confidence in physical "laws" - newton's laws of motion were not only completely "wrong" in their ideas, but all of modern physics can be done without any notion of explicit forces (energies can be used instead, see Lagrangian mechanics if you are unfamiliar with this). Mass is not a constant, even for the constituent particles of an object, momentum is quantized and uncertain, forces are noninstantaneous. Interestingly enough, Thomas Gold, a professor at Cornell University (my alma mater) once told me that he thought that "conservation of momentum is a silly law anyways," in response to my accusations that one of his pet theories violated it. Interestingly enough, though, he firmly believed in the second law of thermodynamics, as being far superior and a more fundamental truth.

I guess in closing I should thank you for all the attention you've paid to various articles (some of your edits seemed to be quite good), however I would caution that making sweeping changes to fundamental articles without any discussion is probably a good way to get reverted. I think that any time you see something that's a sincere issue in an article, you should probably put something up at the talk pages... some people tend to be rather protective of these pages, and the subject matter is very difficult and contains many subtle issues. I have a bachelors degree in physics from a decent school, but I don't dare change any of these pages without consulting a textbook... Mathematics is such a precise language, and physics such a precise study that even small errors can have profound implications (the Bohr model confused me for several years as a schoolkid) so the stakes are very high. I do think that a lot of these pages could use some overhauling (especially the more obscure pages) and copyediting never hurts :) Cheers - JustinWick 00:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

What a long comment, who is going to read all of that? :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

- Me. After all, its my talk page. Fresheneesz 01:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. Nothing is truly yours. Anybody writing here has to have some pity on the third-party curious eye who dies to know everything, unless it is too big a message as the one above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is one of the longest collections of knowledge ever conceived in the history of mankind. If you do not like reading things that are long, I am sure there are much more concise pages on the internet. This topic is nontrivial, and this debate is something I think is a fundamental problem with wikipedia - truth is NOT a democracy. Some people know more than others, and while they *should* be given more weight, right now they aren't. I think someone with a bachelor's degree in the subject should have more weight than someone who is an armchair physicist or whatnot, and someone with higher education (masters/PhD) moreso, ending at an individual who does active research in the field. To counterbalance this, wikipedia has tried to encourage the use of references, but this still assumes that people know which references are good and correct, and know also how to properly interpret them. Fresheneesz does not like to provide refrences (and believe me I understand, they can be difficult to track down), and I think this is one of the main causes of this issue.

Fresheneesz, I suggest that you adhere to wikipedia policy and be willing to back up any and all changes with references if disputed. You cannot honestly expect millions of internet users to take just your word on something without solid reference or undisputed credentials! I think you are onto something with saying that the E=mc^2 equation is confusing, but the proper way to resolve that is through discussion, not vigilante edits. Also, it's important to not worry so much if you get reverted - the checks and balances in wikipedia are such that if you are in the right, it is statistically likely that someone else will undo those reverts, or support you in discussion. It is unlikely that you know something about this subject that no one else on wikipedia knows (and I am sure a lot of people are watching that page). I think that it is good for you to find areas of the physics articles that are confusing - indeed I think you are very much in the prime target audience for such articles, as you are very familiar with terminology etc. I understand what you mean about being upset by being taught many approximations for things, I feel similarly, however there are valid pedagogical reasons for this, and there is a balance between providing an accessible reference and being pedantically correct.

Most of science is most accurately described by mathematics, as it tends to be devoid of the ambiguity inherent in natural languages, but for pedagogical reasons this is not the best way to present new material. I really do think that enough people disagree with you about these edits that you should understand that you require hefty references to convince everyone that you are in the right on these issues. Until and unless these are provided, you should expect that your contributions are being closely monitored and will be reverted when they reduce the factual accuracy or clarity of any science article. - JustinWick 05:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

- I understand your frustration at edits without references. However, certain edits are edits where references are N/A. For example, organization edits. Many of my edits have to do with organization, and not adding information. Some organizations provide more information than others, but simply because of the way the information is written - not the amount of information. For example, on the operational amplifier applications - I reorganized the page to underscore that the inverting and non-inverting amplifiers are simplifications of the differential amplifier circuit. I inputted no new information - however I reorganized it so that people reading about it would retain *more* information than they would have previously.

- You are right that wikipedia's main problem is that *anyone* can edit. However, without this "problem" - wikipedia wouldn't exist. People only edit wikipedia when they think something can be improved (not counting pure vandals), and thus if the article is completely unambiguous and does not contradict other information - as it shouldn't - then users will stop editing. Credentials are nice - but credentials don't prove you know everything, and lack of credentials isn't proof enough to say that one isn't fluent in a subject. I'm not worried about my edits being reverted, but I will work with the editors of pages to work my edits into the page in a fasion accpetable to everyone.

- I would say that most of my edits are reorganizing - or are edits whos correctness is easily validated (that is not to say that they wouldn't be controversial). I will try harder to find references to my edits - but in many cases, references are scarse, and the editors of a page actually need to *think* in order to get an article right. Fresheneesz 06:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Relativistic Mass edit

I guess in my mind I didn't "trash" your edits, as they will always be available in the history. I invite you to re-edit them (to be more concise and less POV) and post on the talk page so you can get some feedback, so that we don't get another round of revert wars. I think you had some reasonable sources (for something that's a consensus thing, it may, unfortunately require a few more that are more authoritative) so... I think there's a valid discussion that can be had about the subject. Unfortunately I didn't have time last night (and really don't have time right now) to make the required edits, and it's more important to me to have less information in an article than to have information that's incorrect or POV (although I do have some objections to wikipedia's NPOV philosophy, I try and follow it). - JustinWick 17:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wipe three

[edit] I remember you

I think I vaguely remember someone with your name at sciforums. -lethe ^talk 01:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Euclid

I wasn't the one who made it a proper redirect, actually I deleted it because I thought it was a joke or something. I saw it on Recent Changes, and the person who fixed it must have seen it there too. Adam Bishop 06:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KoL spoilers

There are so many problems with these tables:

They're not complete
When they're complete the page would be unmantainably large
They look out of place in an otherwise good article
There are other wikis for that information
It's generally a silly idea.
and so on...

Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for more on that topic. Grue 08:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that a separate page is appropriate either, but I don't care about it enough to list it for deletion. You could've at least capitalised the words "Kingdom" and "Loathing" though... Grue 21:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I would be very much interested in helping build a KoL table of information, there was once a website with an amazing table www.agesoftime.com/kol But it went down quite some time ago and i was very upset, well email me at James.reames@mail.mcintosh.k12.ga.us sometime and maybe we can work together on a table, or i can add to a table already in existance.(sorry for all incorrect spelling and grammar)

[edit] Image:Eqaulity relation.PNG

You listed this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion but this is an image and should properly go to Wikipedia:Images for deletion. However, since you are the creator of the image, you can slap a {{db-author}} tag on it (speedy delete request by original author) and it will get deleted by an administrator. Regards, howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brain scan images

Thanks for uploading images (Image:CTscan.PNG, Image:MRIscan.gif, Image:PETscan.png, Image:FMRIscan.jpg) for the brain imaging article. I am afraid they are not usable on Wikipedia, since their copyright is owned by another organization. (To use a copyrighted image without a permission violates both copyright laws and Wikipedia policies.) Most obviously, they are NOT postage stamps.

Unless you receive a permission from their respective copyright holders to use them under the terms of GFDL or a comparable license, or justify their inclusion as fair use, I am afraid they will be deleted.

Sincerely, Mike Rosoft 12:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

For now, I have marked the images with the correct tag: {{fairusein|Brain imaging}}. - Mike Rosoft 10:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More images

I would also like to inform you that some of the images you have uploaded, namely Image:Opampvoltagefollower.png, Image:Opamp-differential.png, and Image:Opamp-noninverting.PNG have no licensing information. Presumedly, you want to license them under "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License" (just like Image:Opamp-noninverting.png), so please add {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to the image description pages. - Mike Rosoft 12:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have added the license tag to the image pages. If you disagree with this licensing, please correct them. - Mike Rosoft 10:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] E=mc2

I am a non-physicist scientist, and agree with the general direction of your posts on E=mc2 and mass, as well as some of those who put the problem more exactly.

I notice that there is a reference in the mass page (http://www.teleles.nl/pdf/total_artikel.pdf) which discusses Lev Okun's article "The Concept of Mass" in Physics Today, only gets it 100% wrong. This PDF article states that Lev defines m in the equation as rest mass; nothing could be more wrong. Rather he defines E as rest energy, asserts that there is only a single mass, etc. etc. Rather a good discussion really. I certainly think both pages need revision.

[edit] Re: Cross product - 3X3 and lagrange

I replied on my talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Lattice of the divisibility of 60.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Lattice of the divisibility of 60.PNG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Longhair 06:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tip

Talk goes to the bottom of a page, not the top. Dysprosia 08:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wipe four

[edit] A plea!!

I hope that you will check this page before long. PLEASE consider spending a few minutes in giving me some support in the discussion on the 'Talk/Entropy' page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Entropy . (My background is on my User page, and support for those credentials, you can gain by 2 minutes in glancing at the list of chemistry texts that have deleted 'disorder' and adopted my approach at "December 2005" in "what's new" of http://www.entropysite.com/#whatsnew )

The inmates have taken over the asylum! Obsessed with retaining 'disorder' and 'loss of information', they continue to resist most argument, but in recent days -- I've only been on Wikipedia a week -- they have grown silent as I swamped them with a 'full monty' of my successful approach to entropy. (It has caused nothing less than a revolution in chem texts -- NOT because of my brilliance or fame, but simply because 'disorder' was a big dead cat whose death all the other mice were afraid to be the first to announce!

I think just a general jumping on the physicists who are adamant to stay they way they were taught, and the info specialist who will never agree that thermo entropy and info "entropy" are not identical-- stupido, will be enough to convince them to think they are as backward as they are!

Thanks!! FrankLambert 05:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PFM explained

PFM; Alfred Centauri 16:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Lattice_of_the_divisibility_of_60.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Lattice_of_the_divisibility_of_60.PNG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

[edit] Your edits at derivative

Hi. I left a message at talk:derivative. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

How about making the variables italic, at derivative, that is,

''x'' or <math>x</math>

instead of plain x? And it would be good if you use edit summaries, they are helpful for other pople.

I strongly disagree with putting the main formulas and the full rigurous mathematical definition on top of an article. If you hang more around this place, you will understand why. People complain that math is hard, that mathematicians write only for themselves, that is, their articles are incomprihensible and scare away people who would like to learn. See also Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polarizer

It's common usage in optics to talk about the light "transmitted" through an optical element (as opposed to light incident on the element or reflected from it.) You're right, though, that this terminology might be confusing to a general audience. I reworded it. See if you think it's better.

The other things you mentioned are a style of presentation from scientific publishing. The idea is to punctuate the equations as if they were part of the sentence, rather than ending the paragraph before each equation with a colon. Thus, if an equation happens to fall at the end of a sentence, it gets a period. If it falls at the end of a phrase, it gets a comma. Depending on the sentence, no punctuation may be required. This is generally easier to read and understand, but I do admit that for some reason with Wikipedia's typography the commas and periods are somehow not as aesthetically appealing as they are in print. I'm not sure why that is. It may be that just more spacing is needed or something. Similarly, it is common in good scientific writing to introduce the variable that is given by the equation at the place where that quantity is first mentioned, i.e. before the equation appears.--Srleffler 04:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Would you mind using the edit summary field, it makes it a lot easier to see whats going on. Thanks! --Tawker 21:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes please, at all times. :) And using your account at all times is good too. More clarity helps others. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I try! Fresheneesz 01:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style tip

Yes, I bug you. :) One remark. One should not put links in section titles, they look ugly, and belong in the text only. Thanks. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes it seems like it would be cumbersome to add the text needed to incorporate the link inside the text. But again, I'll try to compromise. Fresheneesz 22:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August Müller

Thanks for redlinking August Müller in Contact lens. This is like a red rag to a bull to me, and I produced this, which was a DYK article earlier. I think an article on Eugene Kalt is in order, plus a sentence or so on him in the history section of contact lens. I'll get on to it when I get the time. I wasn't the editor who added the bit about Müller being the inventor of the first 'true' contacts to contact lens, but if I can find any more I will add to both the Müller and Contact lens articles. Regards, --BillC 23:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey to you too

I saw your comment on my talk page. Well, I might be someone you know. What's your name? Anabanana459 16:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, then. Don't know you. I do live in MP, though. Anabanana459 01:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ultra

Hi, please could you get consensus to move the page? I think primary disambiguation is reasonable for Ultra. — Matt Crypto 22:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Very well, I'll extend the block; I was just looking at his extended edit history. — Deckill e r 23:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a 100 percent case of simple vandalism, though a good portion of it violates WP:CIVIL. I'll give him a final chance after the three hour block, since I DID notice that some of his edits were semi-productive. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, though it might have been better placed under the "complex" admin intervention tab. — Deckill e r 00:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome. I'm just thinking that maybe this will give him a clue that Wikipedia is run a certain way, and excess attacks and debates are uncalled for. If not, the block will rise :) We've had users get a clue before, so there's always hope. — Deckill e r 00:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

removed RFMF tag

I'm not well-versed in the mediation process, though I'm sure one of the mediators can help (click the first link in that box for a link to the mediators). — Deckill e r 03:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Fresheneesz, it doesn't look like Avidor is doing anything with this mediation, so I just removed the RFMF from the PRT talk page and my talk page. If he follows through with mediation he can put it back. A Transportation Enthusiast 05:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Opamp-inverting.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Opamp-inverting.PNG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

[edit] Table of Electrical Resistivities

For a complete listing of accurate resistivities for elements in the crystaline state you can see: International Critical Tables of Numerical Data, Physics, Chemistry and Technology (1st Electronic Edition) Interactive Tables Edited by: Washburn, E.W. 1926 - 1930;2003 Knovel

Volume 1, Page 103-105.

There are other references availible, this just happens to be a classic one.

[edit] Ratio test

May I just ask quickly, why did you change the a terms to f? x42bn6 Talk 02:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Hi Fresh. One request. Please use an edit summary, and yes, even on talk. You know, if you want people to bother to read what you write, you could at least take the trouble of making it clear what you want to say. :)

You can start a new talk section by clicking on the "+" tab at the top of the page. You can then put the edit summary as the section name. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I replied on my talk. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Replied. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Again. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Path

Fresheneesz, thinks like:

Mathematics $\rightarrow$ Algebra $\rightarrow$ Elementary algebra $\rightarrow$ Polynomial

are a radical overhaul of the Wikipedia user interface. You should surely bring it up at the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or other places before putting it in articles.

In the meantime, I will remove it from where you put it, as it lacks consensus, and to me it looks ugly. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Derivation for point mass" section in Moment of inertia

On March 23, you removed a section entitled "Derivation for point mass from the moment of inertia page. I completely agree that the heading for that section was misleading--moment of inertia is a defined quantity, so it doesn't make sense to "derive" it.

A major concern of mine with physics pages, however, is the amount of information they give to a reader who doesn't already understand the concept. While a seasoned physicist would certainly understand why we define moment of inertia as $I = mr^2$ for a point mass, that definition may seem arbitrary to someone who's just learning the concept--it definitely did to me!

I've rewritten the section and titled it "Uses of moment of inertia", but I wanted your input on it. Do you think it's an improvement to the article?

Trying to help people understand physics,

--Starwiz 20:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! I didn't read the article closely enough. There's already an "applications" section! I still think we need something showing how moment of inertia and angular velocity can give equivalent formulas, so I've moved my math under the "applications" section. It might be better to actually derive the torque equation, though... Starwiz 20:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits to the page. I think it's significantly improved. I'll think about the best way (if any) to add further elaboration about torque. Starwiz 22:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Just a quick note about Blu-ray Disc; the "References" section actually does go above the External links (according to Wikipedia:Citing sources, specifically, Wikipedia:Citing sources#Further reading/external links anyways). And it most definitely goes above any navigation boxes. I also wanted to thank you for tending the linkspam on that (and other) articles. If you find yourself removing spam often, you may want to join WikiProject Spam. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well it's just that this is the first time I've ever seen someone do what you're doing before. =) And (IMO anyways) it makes more sense that the references (that is, the links which verify the article contents by providing sources) appear first. I suspect this is why Citing sources suggests placing external links below references. In the interests of making it more acceptable though, I've shrunken the font size of the references (see, for example, Marshall Plan, where this is used to make a large refs section visibly smaller). I hope this addresses your concerns. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PRT

Fresheneesz... you mentioned on JzG's talk page that you'd be interested in a rational discussion on PRT with a non-proponent. I'm not a proponent, although it might appear that I am based on my fights with Avidor on the talk page. I just get offended by statements that "PRT is a hoax and a scam" and that makes me appear to be more of a proponent than I truly am. I also detest the way that Avidor has tried to manipulate Wikipedia to support his political campaign, so that's another reason I've gotten involved here. Truth is, I have serious questions about PRT, mainly related to costs. But the technology is intriguing to me, and I'd like to see one get built to see if the cost projections play out. Hopefully ULTra will give us some more solid answers. Feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if there are PRT topics you'd like to discuss (I'm new to it too and have found it difficult sifting through all the rhetoric in search of the truth) A Transportation Enthusiast 17:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I started looking at PRT a few months ago, and at first I was swayed to the negative by the LRN article. I later did some of my own research and realized how misleading LRN was, hence my anger towards that particular article. I hated the fact that it turned me off to this technology by spreading what amounts to a bunch of propaganda. Anyway, I was initially skeptical of short headway, but I've done all the math since then, and I'm completely convinced short headways are completely safe. The important point is that brick wall stops are nearly impossible in a well-designed system, so there is no need to have longer headways than 0.5, provided that the design and engineering is sound. This is the critical point for me: if the engineering is such that MTBF (mean time between failures) for critical components is in the millions of years, then only acts of God can produce a brick wall stop on the guideway. And no system can protect against acts of God. So in my view the main point of contention is not headway, but other concerns. My main concerns about PRT are:

short headway regulations - this is a political concern, but politics is a big part of this. I know from a technical standpoint that subsecond headways are safe, but will a regulatory agency rule the other way? Especially given the bias towards rail in many of these agencies?
guideway walkways - this is another regulatory question. I've heard opponents say that a walkway would be required along the whole guideway, by law. I've seen the proponent argument that most failures will allow a vehicle to be pushed into a station by another vehicle, which would seem to indicate that walkways are not needed. Only the most extreme failure would require a bucket. But again, when dealing with regulatory agencies, there's always a question. And walkways along the whole guideway would probably be a deal killer.
cost estimates - it's very interesting that ULTra has demonstrated some reasonable cost numbers, but that's just one system (and a simple one at that -- not even guideway power in ULTra). It's tough to tell how good the estimates are when there are no systems in existence (and, of course, systems are not built because of concerns about escalating costs -- a chicken and egg thing) Also, because PRT is so different, it's difficult to compare cost to line haul modes. I.e. is PRT quoting bidirectional travel for its cost numbers? It's not clear to me.
aesthetics - I love some of the renderings on the Taxi 2000 site. To me, it would blend in nicely in a city. But others have expressed concerns. I do believe that the aesthetics argument is overblown -- take a look at some highway structures for an example of how much we will accept in the name of moving people around efficiently.
the last mile - would people be willing to walk a quarter mile or more to use public transit when they can use their car? Maybe, maybe not. This is true of all transit, but PRT doesn't completely solve it (though it does alleviate it by making stations closer)
logistics - I've seen convinving claims that maintenance would be minimal and could be largely automated, but it's still an unknown for me.

A Transportation Enthusiast 21:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: headway regulations - I agree that starting with longer headways is the way to go, politically (where "long" is 5-seconds, still very short by rail standards). This seems to be the consensus among proponents: start with reasonable headway assumptions and as the systems are proven and (hopefully) regulatory agencies relent, then shorten the headways to meet increasing demand.

Re: walkways - I've seen this claim in a few places, and yes, it would be a deal killer I think. Again, politics. There are very safe transportation systems in existence that are elevated with no walkways, so the concern is not really safety... just the perception that a walkway would be needed "just in case". But why don't we have parachutes for every passenger on airplanes? Because (a) the extremely low crash rate makes them more trouble than they're worth, and (b) even in the event of a crash, they probably would not help much. I think the same can be said of walkways on the guideway.

Re: cost - I'm not disputing any individual cost estimates... I'm just skeptical of cost in general until a real system can be built and the cost estimates are proven. Also, because PRT is so complicated, what does "$10M per mile" mean? Is that uni- or bi-directional? Does that include cross-links between sections (since PRT is typically a grid, not a line)? What about stations and vehicles? Maybe I just haven't researched it enough (my eyes start to glaze over when I start reading accounting-like data - I'm much more interested in the technology :-)). What I would like to see is a side-by-side analysis of capacity per cost for PRT versus LRT. In other words, take an LRT line and calculate its costs and capacity (i.e. I've seen LRT numbers like $60M/mile that can support on the order of 10k/hr... but some systems, i.e. Seattle, come in at almost $200/mile), then calculate how much of a PRT grid could be built with that amount of money. And then I would do the PRT capacity calculation at different headways, to find the "crossover point" -- the headway point at which the capacity/cost ratio for PRT exactly equals that of LRT. What would that number be? If it's less than .5 seconds, then LRT is more economical; more than 3 seconds, then PRT is more economical. If it's between .5 and 3 seconds, then it clearly depends on headway.

BTW, I can't find the specific numbers right now, but I think ULTra has demonstrated something like $10-15M per mile. Don't quote me though.

Re: logistics - I'm actually referring to more than just routine maintenance. I'm talking about support in general -- repairs, guideway inspection, etc. It's not clear to me how much support staff would be necessary for a large PRT grid. I agree that the lack of moving parts makes the support problem much easier.

Re: Skytran - I haven't looked at Skytran too much, because it didn't seem as mature as some of the others (Taxi2000, ULTra). I also don't like the small vehicle design and the high speed design. High top speed is nice, but I don't think it's necessary for most applications. I'll give Skytran another look when I have time.

A Transportation Enthusiast 18:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation tag?

Hi, Fresheneesz. I'm not really sure what you're asking. You might want to check out Wikipedia:Mediation. Andre (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style tips

Hi Fresh. Per the math style manual, variables must be italic, so x instead of just x. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Equation template

Hi Fresheneesz,

Please don't start using that equation template without consulting other users. It breaks the ability of HTML to flow text around images, and is not a standard way of annotating equations. Thanks, --Heron 09:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes please. As I told you before, big things need advanced consultation. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

And please note that section headings must be of the form

   ==Calculating the Thévenin equivalent==

and not

   ==Calculating the Thévenin Equivalent==

(lowercase leters that is). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll just stop using the template then. I just made it so I could format equations in a more compact (and also easier to read) way. Otherwise I just have to do it manually. It really isn't a huge change. And I'm aware of the capitolization standard, as well as other standards. But i'm not perfect, and things like that slip every once in a while - especially when i'm doing large edits. Fresheneesz 19:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but it wasn't the template itself I was worried about, it was the formatting that placed text to the right of the equation. This is not the way that equations are conventionally formatted in Wikipedia, and IMO it's not easier to read. Everybody else puts equations in line with the text or on a separate line, followed by the key to symbols. Please don't change this without consulting. --Heron 19:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. What specific page did you find this formatting worse (if no specific, just an example)? We can ask people on the talk page which they think is better. I've edited a bunch of eqns like this, and you're the first person to complain after like 4 or 5 days or so. And none have been reverted, so I assumed that I was on the right track. Lets discuss this because I refer to eqns in wikipedia a lot, and that formatting makes pages (slightly) shorter, utilizes more of the page, and effectively separates the variable explanations from the rest of the artice - so those that don't need to read it can easily skip over them without feeling like they're skipping actual content. Fresheneesz 19:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I applaud your intention to save space and distinguish the "where" section from the main text, but your implementation doesn't always work. I suspect that the present method is the only one that works in all cases, which is why it has been universally used up to now. Equations are displayed as bitmaps, which means that they won't wrap within tables, so your method will always fail with long equations.

The first bad example I found was this version of Transformer. On my screen, the equation template for $v_P\,$ got squeezed by the diagram of the transformer, causing the table within your template to be confined to less than half the page width, in turn causing the "where" text to be displayed as a column of single-word lines that occupied most of the screen height. This may be because I'm working on a laptop with an 800x600 display today, but Wikipedia is meant to work on any reasonable screen size. The point of HTML is that it flows to fit any screen width, but you break this feature if you start putting text into tables.

The next examples that looked bad were in this version of the same article. The equations for $V_S\,$ and $I_S\,$ had the word "where" floating above and to the right of them, with the symbol definitions below that word and to the right of the equations. This meant that the reader got to the word "where" before he saw the equations, resulting in a very confusing format. --Heron 20:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, well I tried a couple variations, and none work out better. I would say that my method works... unless it doesn't. And when it doesn't, we can just use the old way. How does that sound? Btw, does my format look fine on pages that aren't constricted by pictures or something else? Fresheneesz 01:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

In reply to your question, I think this equation template needs to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. I feel I don't quite like that template, but I don't have good reasons for that, I guess I am just used to the old way of doing things.

But please don't use it until people comment on it. In the worst case it will be time wasted if people disagree with it and we proceed on removing it from everywhere. So, community opinion is important. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Given that in 99% of the cases, the space saved is very small - I think the following format would be better:

$this_{is} an_{equation_{right}} ? \!$

where

this is that,

this is not that, and

how!

does that look good? I think the offset is much more important than the minscule amount of space my template saved. Fresheneesz 02:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good to me. --Heron 12:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of AfD tag

Please do not remove AfD tags from articles which are subject to deletion debates. It is considered vandalism. Just zis Guy you know? 23:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SkyTran deletion mediation

Fresheneesz, I did not solicit votes, and in fact I didn't even vote myself since I was out of town and didn't check that page for two weeks. I do believe that once again JzG is acting at the behest of Avidor (Avidor is the one who originally demanded deletion, and JzG quickly complied as he has repeatedly in respons to Avidor). If JzG was anonymous I might even suspect he was an Avidor sock puppet, because he's basically done almost everything Avidor's requested him to do. I have posted a comment on the deletion debate page and I will try to keep involved. A Transportation Enthusiast 02:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Freshenesz, I applaud your efforts. I think the article is great, meets every Wiki criteria, and will support you in every possible way.

I, too, have had articles yanked for no apparent reason other than they violated an admins POV. Despite repeated requests for qualified statements supporting deletion, all I received were personal attacks, rhetoric, and unqualified statements.

Please let me know how I may be of assistance in your endeavors. Dr1819 15:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Which articles? You've had one article deleted more than once because you failed to provide citations to reputable sources for its significance, and this deletion was twice confirmed by deletion review, but I've not seen one which was deleted for violating an admin's POV. Just zis Guy you know? 16:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Butterflies

OK, I deleted the two redirects you tagged and moved Butterfly (FFT algorithm) to Butterfly diagram. This was what you wanted, yes? I don't know what went wrong; let me know if I can explain anything or be of any assistance. In future, though, to move stuff you should be able to just click "move." Chick Bowen 04:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
~~~~

Fasten 10:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your invitation

copied: Hi, the invitation you gave me says that i'm invited to be a mediator in a *different* case. Is it just standard to ask people to mediate for someone else if they need mediation, or something? I'm just a little fuzzy about what i'm supposed to do with the inviation. Thanks! Fresheneesz 06:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You have submitted a case and answered that you already tried to mediate the case. That was, however, not the question in the form. The question was if you would mediate a different case. That's why I posted this invitation to your talk page. You can be a mediator yourself if you want to and you can ignore the invitation. The reason why you might decide to be mediator after submitting a case lies within the categorical imperative. See "Kantian guilt?" --Fasten 11:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unimodal

I've put a comment on JzG's space. I could discuss options with you here if you like. Stephen B Streater 10:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cordite

Saw your comment on Cordite.

My first thought was that you had misinterpreted the article, my second thought was perhaps the article needed clarifying.

Assuming that you had misinterpreted the article I would say that Cordite is properly classed as an Explosive for legal and transport reasons, but we don't wish to use it as an explosive, i.e. we don't wish it to go bang.

It is used as a propellant. In guns (fire arms, to battle tanks, to naval guns) a charge of cordite (bagged, brass cartridge case, cardboard case, or combustible charge case, depending on the weapon and the date it was designed) is used to propel a bullet or shell (depending on size of gun) up the barrel. In rockets (cordite was first used in WW II for Anti-Aircraft use) the cordite propels the rocket. The Space shuttle, for example, is lifted on a combination of liquid propellants and solid booster rockets - but its not Cordite.

This is why the various editors of Cordite and Smokeless powders (but not some much in Cordite) talk about grains, grain geometry, burning rates, regular burning characteristics, etc. For Cordite (not in article) burning rates are in the range of several inches per second down to several seconds per inch (centimetres can be used if you prefer). A high explosive detonates about 7 to 8 kilometres per second, only in the movies can people out-run it.

Welcome your comments. Without being unkind, an article on petrol (gasolene) would not be expected to list all the cars and vans it could be used in, thus I'm not sure it would be a good ideal to list every gun or rocket that used cordite. Welcome comments on the way to proceed.

Regards Pyrotec 08:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Double superscript notation

See Talk:Double superscript notation. Cheers, Kel-nage 17:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unimodal

I'm tidying up the Unimodal article a bit, as promised. Mostly I'm making it shorter by tightening it up a bit: more concise language, removing things not specific to the Unimodal system itself and merging some very short sections. Have a look some time. Stephen B Streater 20:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elements

Please coordinate your infobox changes with WikiProject Elements. Femto 17:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiLove!

Here's a pizza for you! Pizzas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others using Template:smile! Happy editing! LINUXERIST@ ~~~~~

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:TriangleOS screenshot.png

Thanks for uploading Image:TriangleOS screenshot.png. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] V_CC

Hi Fresheneesz, I need some help over at Talk:Double subscript notation. Bye, --Abdull 16:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Stephen B Streater/FORscene

Hi! I'm improving the original (deleted) FORscene article. There's still some more to do, but you might like to check it over for spin and bias, if you get a chance. Stephen B Streater 18:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derivation of half-life

Hi,
You remarked in an edit comment at Half-life that you're moving the derivation to the talk page, but the talk page's edit history shows no edits by you. Where did it go, and why did you remove it at all? I've placed your talk page on my watchlist, so you may reply right here, to keep the discussion all in one place.

P.S: You can use the five-tilde (~~~~~) feature for the timestamp at the top of this talk page. --Smack (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, yea I guess I never did end up pasting the derivation to the talk page. Whoops.. I did it now. I removed the derivation because it wasn't clear, and I guess I didn't think it was very helpful. I can't remember my reasoning, but I didn't think it derserved the space it took up.

Do you think the derivation should stay? Sometimes, its better if derivations like that appear at the bottom of a page, or if they appear on a separate page all together. Oh and thanks for the five-tilde tip. Fresheneesz 03:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that a section at the end of the page would give it the right amount of prominence. I originally put it in the beginning because I needed it for the formulas, but that point is moot now that we have a whole section just to define the term. I'll put the derivation back, then. --Smack (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll copy this discussion to the talk page of half-life. Fresheneesz 03:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SkyTran Seattle2.jpg

I'm afaraid we can't use images for which we only have premission to use them on wikipedia. They need to be released under a free lisence of some kind.Geni 13:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Free_licenses. The GFDL allows reuse. Thus lisences we use for images much also allow reuse.Geni 19:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

the image would need to be relesed under the GFDL, creative commons attribution, creative commons attribution-ShareAlike or released into the public domain.Geni 23:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nbsp

Why'd you remove the non-breaking space? — Omegatron 21:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks ugly? It makes the wiki-side hard to read. Does the nbsp matter? I mean, normal spaces in normal sentences also produce a space, and make the english language much easier to read. Don't you think? But maybe theres a good reason for the nbsp? Fresheneesz 22:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it makes it harder to read, and I wish there were an automatic solution, but it's the best we have right now. It is put there on purpose, so that numbers and their units do not separate, for instance. This is part of SI style, and recommended by Wikipedia's Manual of Style, too. I wish there were a special character for it, like 160___km/h or 160~~km/h or something. Either that or have the software generate it automatically when it detects units or something. — Omegatron 23:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Afshar's experiment

While perusing different opinions of various people on Ahfsahr's experiement I was glad to see that you, at least, made the absolutely obvious remark that in any ususal Young slit experiment both wave- and particle-type behavious of the photon is apparent in the same experiment (albeit at different times): propagation from the two slits to the image is wave-type, as it creates interferences. But when a detector actuallly detects a perticular photon this is particle-type behaviour, as you mention. The same is true in Afshar's experiment, but is is much more subtle, the waters are muddied because of the dissymetry: one is led to believe that the photon arriving at one detector had to go through the appropriate pinpoint because in fact, the probability it did *not* is small. Small but not negligible, and this is the solution to the paradox. My point of view has been removed from the "Afshar experiement" discussion, but moved on my "user talk page", if you are still interested. Alfredr 05:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How does one nominate such an objective individual for Wiki Admin status?

I'd really like to know, as I've seen multiple commantaries effectively resolved under your guidance. Dr1819 23:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Conversation continued at User_talk:Dr1819 Fresheneesz 23:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FORscene

Fresheneesz, you might want to take a look at the FORscene article, which is tagged for cleanup and is up for deletion again. Overall it looks pretty good to me, but it probably could be toned down a little bit. Stephen is perhaps too familiar with the topic to fix it himself. I may try to work on it too. A Transportation Enthusiast 05:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive Five

[edit] Inclusionist proposal

Freshenessz, you are an answer to prayer. After several articles I contributed heavily to were deleted for nn I've all but given up on writing. Instead I've been searching to contribute on a larger scale to protect and encourage quality, nn articles. I've just discovered your conversations at the Village Pump and Wikipedia talk:Notability and am impressed with your zeal. Are you sincerely interested in proposing an inclusionist notability policy? I certainly am, but I don't want to write it alone. Let me know. --Ephilei 00:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. See my edit. --Ephilei 04:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm much more sympathetic to relaxing notability a notch than relaxing verifiablity. Please could you preserve verifiability in your proposals. Stephen B Streater 18:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheek

I've been reading through your user page, which is interesting as I expected. Are you very possessive of it? I could fix a couple of typos while I'm there if you like. Stephen B Streater 11:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Not possesive at all, go ahead. Fresheneesz 11:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Noticeboard incident

JzG has posted a note about my recent personal attack (as he calls it). You have been recently involved in the debate so I thought I'd let you know in case you wish to respond. A Transportation Enthusiast 16:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cognitive therapy and Evidence-based medicine

I was wondering, given your edit [1], if you'd like to comment on an argument at Talk:Cognitive therapy. Regards -- JimR 10:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to discuss some things beyond the confines of Wikipedia? Contact me at : skybum at yahoo dot com. Thanks!

[edit] Apostrophes

I've just corrected a couple of instances of your misue of apostrophes in plurals. Some were arguably a style rather than grammar issue (100s vs 100's - the latter isn't universally considered incorrect, though the former is generally preferred), but some (including the title of the page "unit's digit", which I've moved to units digit) I believe were an error. May I suggest you take a look at Apostrophe for clarification on correct usage and preferred styles? perviously unsigned comment by User:Mollymoo

[edit] Removed Quotes Talk Page Content

Hey Fresheneesz, I would let the removed ~~quotes~~ talk page content go. I looked at the deletions, they were minor. If you like, maybe you can remove surrounding context that doesn't make sense anymore. But those are old conversations, and I see no reason to make a big issue out of it. Just my opinion. A Transportation Enthusiast 21:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Fresheneesz, I'm sorry, I didn't mean "quotes" (brain fart), I meant the content removed from talk pages to appease Avidor. You indicated on ANI that you were going to add the content back in, and I was suggesting you just forget about it since it's just old talk page content. Sorry about the confusion... A Transportation Enthusiast 09:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talking online

I noticed you're online now. Do you want to IM about WP:NN? I'm on Yahoo as Ephilei or Jabber/Google Talk as masheach at gmail.com --Ephilei 05:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please check my edit

I'm kinda new to Wikipedia editing. I made one here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Bible

Could you verify its accuracy, since it SERIOUSLY changes what the sentence states.

Thanks.

User:leshalfhill

Hi, me again. To be clear(er?), I am not the source of any of the content of this piece. All I did in my edit was to ADD the word "not" in the third sentence of the second paragraph under the section titled "The Bible vs. History". So "since Jericho and other settlements do show signs of violent disruption in the time period required" becomes "since Jericho and other settlements do not show signs of violent disruption in the time period required".

Seemed like it might have been a simple typo from the original author, leaving out the "not". The overall sentence structure points to the need for the word to be included. But I think you would agree that adding the "not" makes a significant difference.

Apologies for the faux pas on signature style. But then, live and learn, so thanks for the lesson. How's this? ==>

Leshalfhill 16:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)leshalfhill

[edit] Essay

While agonising over fine points of notability, you seem to have overlooked the fundamental concept of namespace and WP:ASR. Since you had edited both, I assumed that Essay:Non-notability was just a personal draft and merged it into wikipedia:Non-notability. If you wish it to stand as a separate document, by all means extract it from the history but please do make sure that the title starts with "Wikipedia:" or "user:Fresheneesz/". -- RHaworth 07:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radius of convergence

This edit of yours is quite unfortunate, and mathematically incorrect. To say that the limit is infinite is not at all the same as saying that it does not exist. The sequence may bounce back and forth between 2 and 3, so that the limit does not exist, and that is clearly not a case in which the limit is infinite. Michael Hardy 18:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Languages

Hi There! Can you translate my name in what language you know please, and then post it Here. I would be very grateful if you do (if you know another language apart from English and the ones on my userpage please feel free to post it on) P.S. all th translations are in alpahbetical order so when you add one please put it in alpahbetical order according to the language. Thanks!!! Abdullah Geelah 14:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style at dot product

Please don't use your own way of indenting equations with

the vector a = [a₁, a₂, … , a_n],

it is not standard. Please use the accepted indent only with a column.

Also, note that you got the dot product calculation wrong at dot product.

Also, please note that writing things like

The dot product of two vectors is defined:

$\mathbf{a}\cdot \mathbf{b} = \sum_{i=1}^n a_ib_i = a_1b_1 + a_2b_2 + \cdots + a_nb_n$

where

the vector a = [a₁, a₂, … , a_n],
the vector b = [b₁, b₂, … , b_n], and
Σ denotes summation notation.

is poor English, it just does not read well. It should be written as

The dot product of two vectors is defined as:

$\mathbf{a}\cdot \mathbf{b} = \sum_{i=1}^n a_ib_i = a_1b_1 + a_2b_2 + \cdots + a_nb_n$

where

the vector a is given by a= [a₁, a₂, … , a_n],
the vector b is given by b= [b₁, b₂, … , b_n], and
and Σ denotes summation notation.

(the differences are in bold italic).

But that is still poor style, as the vectors better be written down before they are being used.

I reverted your edits at dot product, the style was better the way it was before (I believe all your edits were style, I did not see content changes).

You can reply here if you have questions. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Please don't use your own way of indenting equations" - its not my style. Well, i've adopted it as my preferred style, but I got it straight from wikipedia's articles, I've said time and time again that theres lots of precedent for that style. Defining things used in an equation both above and below is poor style, for obvious reasons - one place to look is easier than two or more. Consistancy is important, and so is ease of reading. If you thought the english was poor, you may correct it, please don't mass revert edits, as you threw out the good with the bad. Please be a skillful discriminator. Fresheneesz 17:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So please tell me what was good. I saw nothing than style changes (and not good ones). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And it was wrong to remove the statement that it is a product of real vectors. The product of complex vectors is defined differently. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right about fixing things rather than doing a blank revert. But if there is too much to fix (and not much gain in the edit) a revert is prefered. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, in that case, is there no dot product of complex vectors? It doesn't make any sense to me that a complex vector would have a differently defined dot product. Looking it up I see that it is defined slightly different, however this should also appear on the page. All I have time for is a link [2]. 198.129.216.235 20:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen B Streater

FYI: Stephen has just been nominated for adminship, should you wish to register your vote. Actually, it might even be too early to vote (he hasn't even accepted nomination yet) but if you're interested, keep an eye on it for the next few days. A Transportation Enthusiast 18:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA message

		My RfA video message
		Image:RfA message.ogg Stephen B Streater 08:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA comment

You're not supposed to edit an RfA after it is closed, so these were reverted. You could always add your very pleasant comments to the talk page though :-) Stephen B Streater 17:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Integration Userbox

This user integrates Wikipedia.

You've helped out in the past. Add this to your profile if you'd care to: we must spread the word! Cwolfsheep 18:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NN proposal

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I did not say "this proposal must be closed now"; I merely said "I believe this proposal is not presently active", because there wasn't much recent activity on its page or talk page. If you want to discuss some more, by all means, go ahead. (FYI, there were nearly 200 proposals in CAT:PRO; I marked most of those as inactive, and will look more closely and/or participate at those that are still active).

If you have the time, could you take a look at {{historical}} and see if it can be reworded to clarify its meaning? Thanks.

>Radiant< 20:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's preferable to find consensus, but in practice more than half of our proposals die out because of lack of interest, so it simply doesn't always happen. The time period after which something would inactive is a matter of opinion, I suppose, and it depends on the subject matter. I'm reading over the NN proposal again, I'll comment on its talk page. >Radiant< 20:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vanity

No, I reverted your change because lack of assertion of notability is a criterion for deletion. By the way, until (and if) your proposal passes, you should not preempt it by removing the word 'notability' from policy or guideline pages. However, contradictions between policies are not useful and should be corrected (if a policy contradicts a guideline, the policy wins; in other cases it may be trickier). >Radiant< 18:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If a policy misrepresents a guideline, well, that's not good but it could be the result of misunderstanding, or of either page having been modified without taking the other along. Could you please point to specifics?
As to your other question, can you make a clear and unambiguous distinction between the words 'notability' and 'importance'? If so, let's hear it. If not, the two must, for practical purposes, be considered synonymous. >Radiant< 19:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's not a distinction, that's just your assertion without any sources to back it up. Look up 'notable' in a thesaurus and you find 'important'. "Uniqueness" is a reasonable synonym of notability and importance; "popularity" is usually a subset of importance. Verifiability is something entirely different (both its real-world usage and its wiki-usage). Amount of interesting content refers to an article's content and not its subject, and again is something different. It seems to me you're just arguing semantics here, and since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy that tends not to lead anywhere. >Radiant< 19:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  - To reiterate, can you make a clear and unambiguous distinction between the words 'notability' and 'importance'? You have not actually done so yet, other than to claim that either word can sometimes mean other things. Would you be happy if all policy and guideline pages would use the word 'importance' rather than 'notability'? If not, why? >Radiant< 19:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    - Because the common term in Wikipedia happens to be "notability". If I understand you correctly, you don't like the word "notability" and wish to replace it with "importance", but you have been unable so far to show a clear distinction between the two. I rather fail to see the point of this exercise. >Radiant< 19:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
In a more serious matter, you have (twice, I believe) alleged to policies contradicting one another or misrepresenting guidelines. I'd be interested to know where that occurs, so that the matter can be resolved. >Radiant< 20:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR on Template:Wikipedia subcat guideline

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Template:Wikipedia subcat guideline. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Francis Schonken 20:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

Your recent action was to move discussion of a proposal away from that proposal's talk page. Do not do that again; it needlessly confuses people and is, in effect, removing their comments. On the whole, given your recent activities, I would strongly suggest that you spend some more time learning how Wikipedia works before you attempt to change it. Your enthousiasm is appreciated but your recent work related to {{guideline}} and the like is misguided. >Radiant< 09:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The talk page you moved contained discussion about both the old essay and the new page related to that essay. Since the new page is related to the old, I thought it wise to keep the old discussion there for background, but I wouldn't object to a pagesplit or hist split. You are apparently unaware that your move removed discussion of the new page as well. As a side point, you needn't suggest that I read that essay, since I co-wrote it. And finally, I have not stated anywhere that you are new and clueless, and neither do I think so. >Radiant< 20:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'll put the split on my to-do list, but since that's quite a lot of work (indeed, people are generally encouraged not to) I cannot give it any particular urgency. >Radiant< 14:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  - I'd be happy to, but they start with "1.become an admin". The reason this is a lot of work is because it requires some tricky business with the delete/undelete buttons. >Radiant< 19:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indent

I think you're asking

that I

indent like this

instead of
- like this?

Hm, I'll see if I can remember that, it rather comes as a reflex to me. I believe there's tons of people doing either. >Radiant< 16:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer indent like this too, unless there is a particular reason. Stephen B Streater 17:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mailing list

I don't know if you have considered joining the mailing list. We are discussing what should be included in the encyclopaedia, and I linked to your suggestion in passing. Stephen B Streater 09:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infinity?

I'd say that all natural numbers, at least, are verifiable since just about any math book refers to them as a group, and they can all be iteratively defined by adding lower numbers. It'd get far more tricky for arbitrary irrational or even complex numbers, though. But there are already an infinite amount of natural numbers, hence my point. I'm afraid that in math, infinity isn't such a big deal. Yours, >Radiant< 16:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

We're not talking about math here. I agree that "natural numbers" is 1000% percent verifiable. However, individual natural numbers are not verifiable just because that they are part of that group. This isn't math, this is wikipedia. Telling me that these numbers are verifiable because "any math book refers to them as a group", is like saying that every person is verifiable because they are part of the group "humanity" which is obviously verifiable. Fresheneesz 06:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cut it out

If you have a problem with me, tell me to my face rather than leaving snarky messages all over the wiki. If you had checked the log, you would have noticed that I did not delete that poll - so this is the second false accusation you've leveled at me in a week. Furthermore, discussion about users is inappropriate on a log page, making personal attacks like that is inappropriate anywhere, calling people to "fight" me sounds like borderline harassment, and if you think the issue is one of semantics between the words "vote" and "poll" you are seriously misunderstanding the situation. Just cut it out already. >Radiant< 15:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Radiant, I simply said that if they needed help, to ask me for it. Personally, I don't like the way you handle things, and I noticed that I'm far from the only one. Fresheneesz 19:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't make straw men. You were falsely accusing me behind my back, and posting personal attacks on a log page, and rounding up people to "fight" me; your words, not mine. All of that is highly inappropriate behavior. >Radiant< 20:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll gladly stop if you find a way to be more diplomatic in the way you handle yourself. Fresheneesz 23:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not receptive to threats. >Radiant< 00:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That was not meant to be a threat. To generalize: if you don't become more diplomatic, less people will cooperate with you. Thats just how life works. Think Karma. Fresheneesz 20:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive six

[edit] Wikidata

I was wondering whether you noticed my message on your user page:

| I can provide a site like Wikipedia (based on mediawiki) for you to pursue this idea, if you're willing to do management and so on (I'll give you sysop, ftp and shell access). Just let me know on my talk page. I think, though, that Mathematical data should be accepted as well. --nkayesmith 08:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

--nkayesmith 22:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Just confirming that you are watching my user page. --nkayesmith 01:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does include unproven hypotheses where they are important (i.e. widely discussed in the literature). Cold fusion is an example. Theories propounded only by a very small number of people are not covered because we only have one side of the story - until the theory has been peer-reviewed and tested, we can't write about it in neutral terms. You can see what I mean at the Aetherometry AfD. In that case we werre the leading source of rebuttal to the crank theory on the Internet, we had a substantial and extremely well-researched article on the theory and its rebuttal, but in the end none of it had ever been peer-reviewed or published in a reputable journal, because the journals would not touch the theory itself, no peer-reviewer would pass it for publication. There is, I think, no significant dissent form the idea that promulgating one-man theories is not the job of an encyclopaedia, and is covered by WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:NOT (a soapbox).

As to publishing original data - I think that is also entering into the territory of original research. Encyclopaedias are tertiary sources, based on analysis of secondary sources and to a lesser extent primary sources. Raw data is a primary source. We need it to have been mulled over and analysed by subject experts, and for them to have established a view or series of views, before we can cover it in line with policy. If you want to change the policy, you will be changing the entire nature of the project, in a way which is likely to be strongly resisted. Other projects exist where primary sources are analysed directly, I found a science wiki a while back which does that although I can't remember the name of it. Wikisource also hosts public domain primary sources. So: not a bad idea, but not one for this project, I think. Guy 08:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, JzG - I'm not talking about changing Wikipedia. Fresheneesz, did you see my message on my talk page? It has been a while... --nkayesmith 10:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you know of anyone who'd be interested? --nkayesmith 09:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing personal attacks or other potential offenses

Hi, I just noticed that you didn't like when Radiant replaced someones inflammatory comment after someone else removed it. I just wanted to add my say in, because this has been an issue before on talk pages i've been on. While personal attacks are to be avoided, I find that removing them increases the problem rather than abating it. Especially when people are discussing the problem at hand, things get very confusing when comments that one person talks about magically disappear. Outsiders wonder whos lying, or if they're lying, or what the hell's going on.

So for me, removing any comment is bad, and should simply never happen. Insensitive comments like "shut the fuck up" are history of someones character, and help others judge how to respond to that user. Anyways, that just my opinion - I always replace comments that I notice have been deleted. Fresheneesz 01:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fresheneesz,

Thanks for your comments. I really do appreciate them. I don't agree that personal attacks should left on Wikipedia talk pages, as they are still visible in the edit history. A personal attack like "shut the fuck up" isn't going to help defuse the situation, nor does it offer any sort of positive alternative: for me, it's really just a form of vandalism. And a comment that contains little except personal attacks just has no reason to be made in the first place. You certainly raise valid points about people wondering what was said, etc. I will definitely consider what you say, as my editing should reflect the consensus of the community. Anyway, thanks for nice note on my talk page. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 01:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Group-velocity.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Group-velocity.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia exists to write Great Articles not great policy

Hello Fresheneesz :-) You have two traits that should be great assets to Wikipedia, Boldness and Enthusiasm. IMO, currently you are using them in ways that are disruptive and hurt Wikipedia. Insisting on high intensity debates about our established ways of doing things does not help Wikipedia make great articles. Debating policy in the mistaken attempt to force policy changes does not make great articles. Using uncivil language and making personal attacks and threats towards other editors does not help make great articles. Please refocus your time here on endeavors that make great articles. Contact me on my talk page to discuss ways you can use your Boldness and Enthusiasm to make great articles. Take care, FloNight 21:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPA

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. - specifically, your remarks against Doc Glasgow are inappropriate. >Radiant< 23:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

My comments were 100% appropriate Radiant. His removal and mutilation of my post on a talk page is vandalism, and I won't stand for it. Your campaign against good faith edits is not something I will stand for either. Fresheneesz 00:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It is ironic that in response to a warning about personal attacks, you make more personal attacks. You should familiarize yourself with WP:NPA, WP:CIV and WP:ETIQ before continuing your edits. >Radiant< 00:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Fresheneesz please rethink your manner of communicating your thoughts to other users. I really do not want to put it this strongly but must so you have a clear understanding of how you are not following policy against incivility and personal attacks. Consider this a warning and if you make another personal attack or highly uncivil remark you will be blocked from editing. These remarks are not acceptable. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. --FloNight 00:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand what a personal attack is. Heres some examples:

"you are so stupid, you shouldn't even be on wikipedia"

"how does such an arrogant ass become an administrator?"

"Kiss my ass, bitch"

"You are a vandal"

"You are a troll"

"I will vandalize your user page if you don't stay away from me"

Please notice that none of the comments of mine you cited fit the form of any of the above examples. My comments are not personal attacks according to the page no personal attacks. When I say something like "your edit is vandalism" thats not a personal attack. If I say "you are a vandal" or "this person here is a vandal" then it is.

Please stop harassing me. Fresheneesz 00:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Fresheneesz My warning made it clear that your remarks are not acceptable. Wikilawyering about which remark is a personal attack versus a highly uncivil remark is not the way to go. Instead engage in calm friendly discussion and you will not have a problem. If you can not do that then you need to take a break and come back when you can. Again, I'm not looking to block you but see your remarks become consistently civil. --FloNight 01:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I do notice that your comments are civil, and I appreciate that. Please also note that my comments are equally civil. I'm not wikilawyering, but I am telling you that I disagree with you that my comments are personal attacks, and I gave examples and a citation to back me up. I am trying very hard to be civil, but I feel like i'm being attacked. Fresheneesz 01:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being civil. :-) Civil is good! This really isn't that hard to understand but you've gotten yourself in war mode. When several experienced users tell you that your remarks are a problem you should listen. It would be a good idea to stop making edits related to policy for now and stop commenting on other users. You are not going to accomplish anything good and put yourself at risk for lots of trouble, okay. FloNight 02:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note on top of Arbitration

I've noticed that you've been adding a hat note on top of the Arbitration article. This is not the best course of action, since we really don't need to advertise our committee on that page, plus I don't think people go to the Arbitration article looking for our ArbCom. Please take a look at WP:ASR for more details. —this is messedrocker (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the case..

I just glanced at the arbcom case you requested. I haven't formed full opinions yet on some of these matters, but, I have a couple immediate observations: 1) you talk about undue weight and POV pushing, but those concerns apply to article space, not project space. Any editor can and should make their opinions heard, in project space, when those opinions concern what they think is best for the project. This is exactly what ~~article~~(sorry typo) project space is for. 2) I'd guess this case is unlikely to be accepted. If you really feel you must persue dispute resolution, I'd suggest an RFC before on RFAr on this issue. Friday (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not spam user talk pages advertising an arbcom case

The header says it all. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Have a good day -- Tawker 07:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what ads he put up, but the one he put on my talk page wasn't spam, but I'm actually a little involved. Where do you draw the line between spam and notification? (I'm not saying he hasn't crossed that line)-- Chris chat edits essays 14:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know if anyone actually complained. I've been watching this story unfold for some time, and was already aware a RfC was in the offing. Stephen B Streater 18:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything. In short, mass posting of a message on user talk pages without an opt-in is considered spam (at least around these parts) - often people get ticked off and hence, it's policy (it's somewhere on the books) - No worries, I just thought I'd give you the heads up -- Tawker 18:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

In short a page where people say "I want to recieve messages regarding xyz" - people have to add themselves to a list -- Tawker 18:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much, you don't. If they're interested enough to comment they'll do it themselves. If one advertises it to other users it can be seen as encouraging support one way or another and in terms of consensus building it's not a good thing - thats pretty much why we don't advertise stuff. -- Tawker 21:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved Talk archive

I've moved your archive to a subpage of your talk page, so that it's a part of your user talk page instead of the mythical User:Fresheneesz(archive)'s. -- Chris chat edits essays 13:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Fresheneesz 18:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk

Hello Fresheneesz :-) Want to let you know that I work as a clerk for the arbitration committee. Since I made comments on AN/I and your talk page as an administrator I will not be doing any clerking for the RFAr that you started. Any editing that I do (if any) on this case will be the same as a regular administrator. Take care, FloNight 16:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability is subjective?

If you read Uncle G's essay User:Uncle_G/On_notability, you'll see something that might answer part of your concern. We don't judge notability for ourselves- that would be "original research" and would be too subjective. We go by what legitimate sources are saying. (Dunno if this helps at all, but it makes sense to me :-) Friday (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability is a useful term

Notability is a useful term in limiting minor points that can add bias; in limiting marginally verifiable claims that seem verified but because they are so minor it may be no one bothered to correct them; and in restraining Wikipedia's invasion of privacy which is both a legal and moral issue. WAS 4.250 00:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grudges against users

It recentlly appeared on WP:PAIN that Radiant felt he was being harassed and attacked by you. I would just like to suggest that instead of holding a grudge against him and talking to other editors about what you don't like about him, that you try a user conduct RFC instead, as holding a grudge is unproductive. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 00:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Fresheneesz :-) I have a suggestion that might help smooth things over a bit between yourself and some other users. It would help a great deal if you focus on content instead of the editor when you make comments on talk pages. Commenting on the editor "puts people on the defensive, closing their minds to other ideas and preventing a consensus from forming" If you look through your edits I think that you will notice that you have a habit of making remarks about Radiant. It is considered uncivil to lace your remarks with a judgmental tone and point out another user's faults during a content discussion on a talk page. Please stop doing this ASAP. Take care, FloNight 01:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom case

I am of the opinion, and I should put a note like this on my talk page, that people should not come to me trying to get attention, I would have found the case if it was discussed on the relevant talk page, in good time, or if I was actually involved. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I don't really have time for the matter. Cheers, Ansell 10:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll

Hi! Your straw poll seems to have attracted a lot of interest. What have you learned so far? Stephen B Streater 19:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why your ArbCom response to Radiant! was moved

The text at the top of the page clearly states "This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment." That's why it was moved by somebody else the first time and why I moved it the second time. Follow da Rulez. It helps. --Richard 22:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-notability

I've kept away from Wikipedia:Non-notability while it developed, but the straw poll has got me interested. Now I have looked at, it seems to answer some of my concerns by being more reasonable than it has been billed. I will check it in detail when I get the chance. My major concern is that there is a critical mass of editors required to ensure that articles stay good, and this is one of the functions served by the notability idea.

Whereas WP:NOTABILITY is a record of current practice and the policy reasons behind it, Wikipedia:Non-notability seems to be more like constructive advice on how to make use of information in existing non-notable articles. Is this partly right? Stephen B Streater 22:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Drini 22:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dot convention

Please check Dot Convention on Mutual_inductance.png It appears to be incorrect.

[edit] Proposed enforcment

It is the way that the remedy is enforced. Most common way is by blocking a user. I suggest that you read some other arbitration cases. This might help you better understand how to form findings of fact, remedies, etc. FloNight 20:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration procedure

I noticed that you added a proposed remedy to the "Proposed Decision" page in the "non-notability" arbitration. That was a procedural error, because only the arbitrators themselves are allowed to make proposals on that page. I am not connected with the arbitration, but to try to avoid this becoming an issue (I am sure the procedure is confusing), I have removed the proposal before someone got upset by your having put it in that location. However, if you think your suggestion should be considered by the arbitrators, you can post the exact same thing on the "Workshop" page for the arbitration, which anyone (including parties to the case) can edit and the arbitrators can read. I hope this is helpful (and note that I am not endorsing your proposal). Newyorkbrad 05:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patience

Hey, I think you should take Geogre's advice on the arbitration page, and just relax. I think the evidence is strongly in your favor on many points, but if you are too aggressive there you could sway the board against you. I've even seen you use foul language on the talk page - what are you thinking man?!! I do understand that those comments are a result of your extreme frustration at the way this thing has played out, but you can't let that cause you to act in a way that, frankly, only serves to give credibility to their claims about you! Let the process play out, let others present their evidence (several have already presented evidence to support you), and whatever happens, happens. ATren 21:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

I just wanted to thank you for being so resilient and not leaving Wikipedia. I think it's ridiculous how admins constantly harassed you about WP:NNOT, and then when you broke down, said you were incivl and should be blocked for a year. I think that bullshit shouldn't be taken anywhere; admins are not a cabal, and I'm glad that we're in RFAr, where the arbitrators will hopefully sort out Radiant!'s one-sided bullshit from the fact that he wouldn't stop provoking you until you mess up. -- Chris chat edits essays 12:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] irrational number

I'm glad someone quickly reverted your edit. You're quite confused. The definition you wrote is NOT taken to be the definition by any mathematician, but it's a surprisingly persistent meme; I don't know why. Michael Hardy 21:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think part of what you're missing is this: rational number is NOT defined as a number whose decimal expansion, or expansion in some other base, terminates or repeats. That's what I was calling a persistent meme that is not taught in math courses. Michael Hardy 22:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well if the reals shouldn't be defined like that, that page needs some sort of rearrangment, cause the page sure seems to imply that its the definition. And btw, i'm *not* missing that rational numbers aren't terminating or repeating decimals. I know that, and never said they were.. so.. i don't get why you're coming to that conclusion.. Fresheneesz 23:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually they are, but that's not generally taken to be the definition, and for good reasons. But if you're not missing that point, then why did you write that in the edit that I criticized? Michael Hardy 19:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sign bit image

Hi, I just wanted to inform you that I've listed your image Image:Signed bit.PNG for deletion, as the same information is already included in the article two's complement as a table. Hope this is OK. Happy editings, –Mysid^(t) 13:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Steps.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Steps.png. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High Impedance

Strictly speaking, high impedance is just an impedance. But in the engineering world, it's used in a lot of different ways. We often say a signal is hi-z, referring not to the actual electric signal, but to a particular pin on an IC, or other connection. For instance, you might say, "XHOLD is a hi-z signal". In this case, XHOLD is actually just a pin on a DSP, but the meaning is understood.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss it with me, and making the article better. I did make one change to your edit: the comment about tri-state as an input to a digital circuit being undefined. The effect of a tri-state on a circuit is perfectly well defined; it does nothing. That's basically they're entire purpose. I guess what you probably meant was that if you have an input signal which expects a high or low, then the behavior will be undefined if you give it hi-z instead. And I guess that's sort of what you said, but I think it needs to be stated more clearly. When I first read it, I got the impression that you were implying that a hi-z anywhere in the circuit would mess it up.

B.Mearns ^*, KSC 13:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 Denier

It seems you are a 9/11 denier. I would propose that gullible simpletons should not be allowed anywhere near an online encyclopedia. unsigned comment from User:86.131.160.121

[edit] Charles Burlingame article nominated for deletion

Hi. FYI, another editor has nominated the Charles Burlingame article you creaated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Burlingame. Personally, I think it's a keep. I though you should know. --A. B. 21:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Tweel diagram.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tweel diagram.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Notability "Guideline" under significant pressure - please help

I and some others have surprisingly managed to open (widely) the topic of whether the Wikipedia Notability Guideline, the Deletionists' Best Friend, is a valid Wikipedia Guideline at all, on grounds of lack of consensus, lack of objectivity, conflict with Policy, and ramapant abuse in the article deletion processes. This is probably the last chance to have any major impact on this supposed Guideline (it was just a random essay this summer, but turned into a Guideline on shaky grounds while I was on an extended wikibreak...) I'm not you to make trouble, or even support my version of what's wrong with Wikipedia:Notability; just express your concerns rationally. The hot spot is Wikipedia talk:Notability. I know you've been heavily involved in the overall debate (and wish I'd known what was going on this late summer / early fall what with the "failed" marker on NNOT, NN being mis-promoted to guideline, the arbitration (which I intend to weigh in on), etc. Feel free to drop me a Talk page line if I'm ever needed to weigh in on that topic (and wait until you see the gaping holes I've been blowing in pro-WP:NN arguments before deciding >;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ</span> 09:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electron configuration

Hi! I think I've identified you correctly as the person who marked electron configuration with a "context" flag (way back in May '06). I'm new to Wikipedia, and not entirely familiar with established procedure. Anyway, I just updated the lead paragraphs in that article and thought I'd let you know. Or should I just delete the "context" flag myself?

Thanks! DavidCBryant 15:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Come ye back!

I've spent literally hundreds of hours on trying to cope with information "entropy" people and the de facto 'owner' of the Entropy article since the first of July. It all appeared to be futile because of their obdurate exclusion of any published info other than their ideas until recently. Now, at last, a skilled professor in physical chemistry Bduke has returned to the Entropy article and may restore some order and sense to what is now a gargantuan creature. Could you please glance at it, lurk, and contribute to the Talk:Entropy discussions? I recall that your viewpoint was rational (!) and helpful :-) Thanks! FrankLambert 18:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Physical constants

Hello again, Fresheneesz!

Say, it's been a long time, but last December you left a couple of unanswered questions on the physical constants discussion page. I just wrote up a fairly long answer ... you can view it over here if you're still interested.

Have a great day! DavidCBryant 17:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XPLANE deletion review

Fresheneesz, Would you mind weighing in on the deletion review for XPLANE at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 24? Your comments/opinions are much appreciated.Dgray xplane 15:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Fresheneesz may be placed on probation if he continues to disrupt policy pages. Such action shall be by a successful motion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Motions_in_prior_cases by any member of the Arbitration Committee after complaints received from one or more users.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 03:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] arbitration?

I am considering going to dispute resolution or arbitration against JzG, for his activities on the PRT pages. I wanted to do it back in April, but I took the high road then due to JzG's personal issues; but now it's coming back to haunt me that I didn't do it then. It may be too late now. What's your opinion? ATren 18:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That's my view too -- that arb com probably will not give my side proper consideration, given our relative reputations. I'm going to play it by ear; if our little cold war subsides, I'll probably just drop it. BTW, it's nice to see you are taking a pragmatic view after your (IMO incorrect) arbitration setback. Perhaps I should take that route as well - I just can't seem to ignore it when JzG goes around calling me a POV pusher and a troll, and that seems to be getting me into more trouble. :-( ATren 16:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to splash in this discussion, but I think you should go for DR or arbitration if you think he's troublesome. At least get it out there if you think it is necessary so Wikipedians can judge. -- Chris is me 07:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Tesla roadster real.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tesla roadster real.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Big Smooth 23:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/e/User_talk%7EFresheneesz_Archive_6330.html"

Category: WikiProject Integration participants

User talk:Fresheneesz/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Wipe One

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

[edit] Total relations

[edit] Cross product

[edit] op amp edits

[edit] Image licensing

[edit] Minor edits

[edit] Wipe two

[edit] Images

[edit] 2nd law vandalism

[edit] Ideal gas law

[edit] Entropy/Disorder

[edit] Relativistic Mass edit

[edit] Wipe three

[edit] I remember you

[edit] Euclid

[edit] KoL spoilers

[edit] Image:Eqaulity relation.PNG

[edit] Brain scan images

[edit] More images

[edit] E=mc2

[edit] Re: Cross product - 3X3 and lagrange

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Lattice of the divisibility of 60.PNG

[edit] Tip

[edit] Wipe four

[edit] A plea!!

[edit] PFM explained

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Lattice_of_the_divisibility_of_60.PNG

[edit] Your edits at derivative

[edit] Polarizer

[edit] Edit summaries

[edit] Style tip

[edit] August Müller

[edit] Hey to you too

[edit] Ultra

[edit] Block

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Opamp-inverting.PNG

[edit] Table of Electrical Resistivities

[edit] Ratio test

[edit] Edit summary

[edit] Path

[edit] "Derivation for point mass" section in Moment of inertia

[edit] References

[edit] PRT

[edit] Mediation tag?

[edit] Style tips

[edit] Equation template

[edit] Removal of AfD tag

[edit] SkyTran deletion mediation

[edit] Butterflies

[edit] Invitation

[edit] your invitation

[edit] Unimodal

[edit] Cordite

[edit] Double superscript notation

[edit] Unimodal

[edit] Elements

[edit] WikiLove!

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:TriangleOS screenshot.png

[edit] VCC

[edit] User:Stephen B Streater/FORscene

[edit] Derivation of half-life

[edit] Image:SkyTran Seattle2.jpg

[edit] nbsp

[edit] About Afshar's experiment

[edit] How does one nominate such an objective individual for Wiki Admin status?

[edit] FORscene

[edit] Archive Five

[edit] Inclusionist proposal

[edit] Cheek

[edit] Admin Noticeboard incident

[edit] Cognitive therapy and Evidence-based medicine

[edit] Apostrophes

[edit] Removed Quotes Talk Page Content

[edit] Talking online

[edit] Please check my edit

[edit] Essay

[edit] V_CC