Fresheneesz
LAST WIPED (on the date next to my name) - Fresheneesz 22:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Archive
View the archive of User_talk:Fresheneesz(archive)
Talk below
PFM explained
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 or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you. -- Carnildo 09:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Block
Very well, I'll extend the block; I was just looking at his extended edit history. — Deckiller 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. — Deckiller 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. — Deckiller 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). — Deckiller 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)
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).
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. Shyam (T/C) 23:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
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.
May I just ask quickly, why did you change the a terms to f? x42bn6 Talk 02:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
Path
Fresheneesz, thinks like:
| Mathematics Algebra Elementary algebra 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)
"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,
- 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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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 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 and 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:
-
- where
- this is that,
- this is not that, and
- how!
- where
- 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)
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)
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)