User talk:Army1987

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Replies will be posted to this same page. If you want to be replied on your user talk page, please ask me so.

Archive 1 (2004–05) Archive 2 (2006)

Contents

[edit] Environmental Protection Userbox

Hi Army1987, Thanks for using the userbox that I created (the one about supporting environmental protection). I'm glad that there're people in the world who care about the environment just as much as I do. Please encourage your friends to put up this userbox if they have accounts in Wikipedia. Currently I am doing double major (Biology and Environment Science) at University of Toronto. If you have any questions about environmental protection, please don't hesitate to contact me by wiki.
OhanaUnited 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Il_sogno_del_menestrello.ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:Il_sogno_del_menestrello.ogg. I notice the image 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. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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. ShakespeareFan00 14:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Hope this suffices. --Army1987 10:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed that the song is 3 min 57 s, so 30 s is longer than 10%. I'm updating a shorter version. --Army1987 10:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning out the additional logarithm topics article

Hello! I noticed you were a contributor to the Additional logarithm topics article and I've posted on the talk page a suggestion that I believe would help clean up the encyclopedia. Would you mind checking it out and adding your comments or suggestions on the talk page? Thanks. Ed H | talk 02:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kilogram’s circular definition

Copied from Talk:Kilogram
  • Army1987: Yes, you are right. The Avogadro constant (the mole) must be fixed in Kilogram, otherwise it would be a circular definition. It is now fixed. I can not tell you how many bright people (at least seemingly so) have looked at this article and overlooked that laps of logic. I see you are an Italian physics student and English is likely your second language. Your choice of vocation certainly seems to be the right one. My wife and I just visited Italy (and some of Europe) and just loved your country. Thanks for your help. Greg L (my talk) 06:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Binaural beats

Notice you have edited on talk page. At present looking for consensus there to retain beat generators in Links. Care to comment Jagra 10:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duh (disambiguation)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Duh (disambiguation), and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.clarkandpartners.co.uk/wiki.php?title=Duh. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ExtremeValueTheorem.png

Thank you for Image:ExtremeValueTheorem.png, but I'd argue that the way it appears in the Continuous function article it would need a lot of improvement. The function is very oscillatory, and that distracts from the point it is trying to make. It is also rather blurry, and the green and blue points are invisible in the thumbnail.

Could you regenerate the picture with a smoother function (say an absolute value or a function with an angle but smooth otherwise) and make the curves thicker and green/blue points more visible? Wonder what you think. Thanks. You can reply here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the points are too small, and the lines could be thicker. I'll fix that. As for smoothness, IMO in example images one should use the a typical instance of a concept, rather than a particularly well-behaved one, for example an example image of a triangle had better not depict an isosceles triangle, or an example image of an angle shouldn't depict a right angle. And most continuous functions are nowhere differentiable. I agree that as it stands that makes the image quite ugly, but maybe using thicker lines will mitigate that issue. --Army1987 (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, so I guess we disagree here. I'd argue that most functions people see are smooth or piecewise smooth. A piecewise smooth (with a kink and an angle say) function would look better to me. The highly oscillatory function will strike people as alien, such a diagram would be more appropriate in illustrating a nowhere differentiable function rather than a maximum/minimum concept. But OK, it is your image. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that usually, in mathematics, continuous functions are exemplified by smooth or piecewise smooth functions. That's because the most used functions are analytic functions with closed-form formulas. But most "real-world" (i.e. stochastic) functions aren't smooth. A diagram of stock market prices, a seismograph, or the waveform of brown noise (or indeed of any audio sample more complicated than the output of a tuning fork or of a synthesizer) will be very spiky, so that graph might not be as "alien" as you think. Of course, that image is going to be used in math articles, so that a more regular function would look more familiar, but I think using an example of the most general kind which still satisfies the definition of "continuous" isn't such a bad idea. --Army1987 (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Filed in the "Hacker" article

In accordance with clause (4) of the Arbitration Filing Procedure, you are hereby being notified that you have been mentioned as a contributing party to the article and you can make a statement.

You can find the claim, and make your statement here.

I am required to tell you this information I am the filing party for the arbitration claim.

Andrew81446 (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hacker

Thanks for making the dab move. I have leapt in to do some cleanup of the new dab page. Hope you approve. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, some of the definitions are better than the ones I could think. I had a different sorting in mind, though.
That's fine. I've tweaked it a bit further. There's some more cleaning of the miscellaneous stuff needed at the end but we're getting there. Note that I've also started on the hats - see Black hat. I plan to cut back lots of the extraneous clutter which may help in getting some of this stuff merged. There's lots of text without proper sources and so it seems easy to cut back to the meat. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)