User talk:Fresheneesz: Difference between revisions
Oleg Alexandrov (talk | contribs) |
Oleg Alexandrov (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
: And it was wrong to remove the statement that it is a product of real vectors. The product of complex vectors is defined differently. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 17:57, 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. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 17:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:59, 11 August 2006
LAST WIPED (on the date next to my name) - Fresheneesz 17:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Archive
View the archive of User_talk:Fresheneesz(archive)
Talk below
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)
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)
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)
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!
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
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)
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)
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.
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
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)
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)
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)
Style at dot product
Please don't use your own way of indenting equations with
- the vector a = [a1, a2, … , an],
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:
where
- the vector a = [a1, a2, … , an],
- the vector b = [b1, b2, … , bn], 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:
where
- the vector a is given by a= [a1, a2, … , an],
- the vector b is given by b= [b1, b2, … , bn], 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)