User talk:193.198.16.211

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Men in skirts

Men in skirts was deleted in accordance to Criteria for speedy deletion: General criteria #4, because it was a recreation of previously deleted material, albeit under a different title (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Male Unbifurcated Garment and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men's fashion freedom). Re-creation of the article was also rejected by a deletion review. --Ezeu 21:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncle Ben

Hi, do you have any hard evidence that "Uncle Ben" refers to the Superman character more often than the rice spokesman in common usage? I haven't any firm basis, but I felt sure that the rice guy was much better known. We might just have to make it a disambiguation page.

Eleland 22:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Google gives 12 hits on the rice guy before anything on Spiderman (not counting the Wikipedia page). I really think it should point to Uncle Ben's.

Eleland 22:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this is only due to similarity of the names. Take a look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Uncle Ben and you will see that Spiderman related articles which links to Uncle Ben vastly outnumber any other articles linking there. Also Uncle Ben's is very rarely (maybe never) called "Uncle Ben". --193.198.16.211 09:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good work

Good work on your edits. Keep this way! --83.131.29.160 01:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medcab case

Hello, you were a participant in a Mediation Cabal case that has been re-listed as possibly needing a new mediator. The case is listed at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-20 Male genital mutilation. As some time has passed since there was last any activity on this case, I'm checking in to see if this is still an active dispute that requires mediation, and if so, to indicate that I am willing to take it up. Please let me know. Otherwise if this is no longer an active dispute I'll simply de-list the case, and thanks for your time. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to July 16. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. Deadly∀ssassin(talk) 02:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

[edit] Bands

I did what was requested on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Bands. You were involved in that discussion, so what do you think? --Qsaw (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poynting Vector

I agree that the divergence of the flow will be zero. But has any such flow been detected? I just quoted Jordan Balmain when I did that edit. Weltanschaunng 05:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Cradle of Filth. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Funeral 21:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Cradle of Filth, you will be blocked from editing. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Sequence for Maxwell's equations

You are probably right. And it's probably best to keep to the tradition. If you know how to label these equations it will then remove any ambiguity as regards the history section. I had put Faraday's law last because it required a special discussion in the history section as it doesn't appear in exactly that form in any of Maxwell's papers. I wanted it to mirror the chronology of the history section.

If you label the equations in the introduction, that will remove all ambiguity. I was unable to label them within an acceptable format. George Smyth XI (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I got your message on my talk page. That's fine with me. But do you think that perhaps we should label the equations in the introduction? I would have done it but I don't know how to format it. George Smyth XI (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it looks fine now. I think that it is important to have a summary of the equations in the introduction.George Smyth XI (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an explanation for why D corresponds to B , whereas E correspomds to H in the article Magnetic Field. B is magnetic flux density. It is the product of H and μ. The permeability quantity μ originally applied to the density of Maxwell's vortex sea. The current density term J is equal to ρv. J and B are therefore weighted terms because they both arise from multiplying a more fundamental quantity by a density term. J itself is the time differential of D, hence, D more closely parallels with B.George Smyth XI (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as you know that D = εE and B = μH then you can use whichever of these expressions you wish in any of the equations of electromagnetism. You can write the Lorentz force as F/q = -gradΨ -(partial)dA/dt + μvXH if you so wish, just as Maxwell did. Or indeed as D = -εgradΨ -ε(partial)dA/dt + (1/c^2)vXH George Smyth XI (talk) 05:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)