Welcome!

Hello Gala.martin/archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

I undid your change at probability space since it looks to me that a measure is positive by definition. And I have a question, you removed some material with this edits, and it is not clear to me why. Would you mind going on to the talk page of that article and clarify? By the way, a good idea is to always put an edit summary when you contribute, that helps others understand what you changed. Again, welcome, and I hope you like it here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Please note that by Wikipedia conventions outlines in Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a section heading should say "General mathematical definition" with lower-case initial "m" and d rather than capital letters. I changed this in martingale.

Happy editing. Michael Hardy 00:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please note that you do not need to write [[martingale | martingales]]; you can write [[dog]]s, [[hyphen]]ated, [[logic]]al, [[dogma]]tic, [[apocrypha]]l, [[Austria]]n, [[evolution]]ary, [[rabbi]]nical,, etc., and the whole word, not just the page in brackets, will appear as a clickable link, to the page whose name is in the brackets. The more complicated form can be used for things like theories. Michael Hardy 21:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scusa se mi intrometto nelle tue pagine private; penso che accetterò il tuo invito a migliorare l'articolo, e ho già trovato 2 collaboratori (che, tra l'altro, non sono berlusconiani); onestamente penso che solo poche parti dell'articolo si possano conservare.

io vorrei scrivere un articolo che sia il piu neutrale possibile con l'ausilio di fonti che siano le piu istituzionali possibili (evitando di consultare fonti che possano essere faziose in entrambi i sensi); mi piacerebbe inserire solo i fatti certi e provati, evitando di parlare di questioni aleatorie come, ad esempio, il suo discutibile senso dell'humor e approfondendo gli atti legislativi ove possibile non tralasciando, però, i processi penali che lo riguardano o che lo hanno riguardato ( vorrei inserire, per ogni causa penale, la situazione allo stato attuale, ovvero: causa in corso, causa risolta con un verdetto di assoluzione, causa risolta con un verdetto di colpevolezza etc).

I tempi tecnici per la stesura dell'intero articolo sono medio-lunghi, causa mancanca di molto tempo libero; prima di modificare l'articolo esistente, però, mi piacerebbe che tu, e chiunque ne abbia il desiderio, lo legessi per approvarlo o meno; naturalmente, se vuoi partecipare alla stesura dell'articolo, sei il benvenuto

Saluti

P.S. naturalmente non sarò io a tradurlo in inglese, in quanto il mio inglese farebbe sbellicare dalle risate chiunque sempre se venisse compreso :); ho già richiesto il supporto di qualche utente (di madre lingua inglese) registrato su Wikipedia e, al momento, sono in attesa di eventuali risposte

P.S.S. non vorrei apparire autoritario cancellando in una volta sola ciò che piu persone hanno scritto qualche tempo fa, cosi se mi puoi consigliare una procedura da adottare ne sarei ben lieto; ad esempio dovrei contattare qualche amministratore? o coloro che hanno redatto l'articolo (anche se non so chi siano)?

LEGATVSLEGIONIS 03:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since (they say) one should write in english on en:wikipedia, you'll find my answer here. Gala.martin 15:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it is two years? The seige runs from an unspecified time in 149, through 148 and 147, and an unspecified span of time until the spring of 146. If we estimate a 1/2 year in 149 (average it out), and no more than a 1/4 of year in 146, that gives us somewhere between 2.5 and 3 years. I guess it depends how you round it, but it is more than 2 and probably less than 3 (unless they seige started early spring 149).

Additionally - since you seem to have a historical bent - have you considered joining the Military history WikiProject, especially the Classical warfare task force and/or the Middle Ages task force ? We can always use interested writers. - Vedexent 21:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the (third punic) war started in 149 BC, but the siege of Carthage started in 148 BC. The first ground and naval operations were in favor of the Carthaginians. It took a while to the Romans to attack and conquer the towns surrounding Carthage. During the winter of 148, Carthage still had an army outside the wall. When the Carthaginians' army retread inside the walls, the Romans still did not place a complete siege. The consuls wanted to be sure they could receive enough supplies before setting the camp down.

Anyway, the subject can be debated. In fact, the Romans tried (unsuccesfully) to breach the wall in 149 BC. But there was not a siege going on. After this try, they turned to towns other than Carthage (looking for help/supplies), and had to fight the aggressive Carthaginians army outside the wall. The next try to breach the wall (unsuccesfull again) was carried out only by the end of 148. So, I changed 3 to 2 in the article, beacuse in 149 there was not a real siege, but just a push, a try to breach the walls. Moreover, in the article about the Battle of Carthage, they state 2 years siege.

I thank you for your invitation to join the Classical warfare task force. I think I will accept your suggestion. Unfortunately, I will not be back home till the end of July, and I have not books here with me. Anyway, what should I do? Just write my name in the Classical etc.. page? Do I have to join the Military history project, if I want to join the subproject? Thank you for your help. gala.martin (what?) 01:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's a well thought out and well presented defense :) I'll have to go back and check my sources - time to dust of Polybius. What you say is very reasonable, and it is very likely what happened, but I'll have to see what the reference material says. Do you have references you're taking your series of events from - if we have conflicting references that should be mentioned in the article as well as one of the many point of disagreement among historians.

Yes - just add your name to the participants list on the task for page. It is considered good manners to put your name on the main wikiproject list as well, even if your interest is only in the work of one of the task forces. You aren't required to do anything, anytwhere, that you don't want to, after all. Oh, and feel free to use our snazzy userbox :) - Vedexent 03:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a POV but interesting website, that confirms (at least in part) what I stated. I am abroad at moment, and cannot look at my books. Polybius is good for quotes, but not for history (I mean, is a great source, but not completely reliable). gala.martin (what?) 20:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this:

Scipio Aemilianus, on the strength of his family name, was elected Consul for 147-146 B.C., and immediatly began operations to confine the Carthaginians to the city itself --Appian, Punic wars. 91ff;

The beginning of the siege and the attack of Carthage were organized by consuls Lucius Marcius [Censorinus] and Manius Manilius. - Livy, | "Periochae", 49:10.

According to Varro the consulship of Manius Manilius is in 149 BC - but all Livy is saying is they planned it. Appian says that the seige started in 147, but I'm not sure how well you view Appian as a source ;) - Vedexent 06:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in 149 the consuls were still trying to convince the senatus to give them enough supplies and men. Maybe, this is what is meant by planning. I think that the siege had probably not a initial date. The Romans tried to breach in the wall first, then fought outside of the wall, then they setted a camp to siege the town (and tried to breach again), but this camp was still farer from Carthage than usual (in a siege). Finally (maybe even in 147) they setted a regular siege. The fact is that the Romans expected the Carthaginians to surrender before the siege. They had not siege supplies and machineries ready for the siege. It took some time to get ready. gala.martin (what?) 15:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but there is no reference. I'm thinking the best we can really give is approximate date ranges at to the beginning and end. Which is problematic, as to when to move the article to. I'm tempted to just move it to Battle of Carthage (149 BC) and explain the "fuzziness" of the date in the text. - Vedexent 15:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I am going to check if there is some reference in the website I linked above. I have some surveys books on the argument, but the various parts are written by differente authors, and I really do not remember who wrote this part (as I told you, I have not the books with me; I really hate that). gala.martin (what?) 21:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working to translate an 1862 biography from Italian to English, in order to write a featured article. If possible, can you please translate just this paragraph:

Vedesi tuttavia che nulla nè allora nè dopo, ei ricavò da Chiapino, al quale già nella epistola dedicatoria, data d'Anghiari il 10 dicembre 1550, annunziava la sua istante partenza, dal luogo nativo. Aggiungerò che, a quanto pare, l'autore, stesso non fece poscia alcun caso di, questa sua letteraria fatica; mentre, solito qual'è di fare qua e là menzione, delle varie sue opere, di questa sola si tace ovunque, se non che nella dedica della Fortificazione al Re di Spagna, poichè la circostanza vi si prestava (ma ad un tempo quasi scusandosene), dice di avere scritto que'canti sin dalla mia (quasi dirò) fanciullezza; e volle dire in gioventù, poichè quando nel 1543 accadde la guerra contro i Duchi di GhelAria e di Clèves, che forma il soggetto del poema, doveva l'autore contare circa i ventitre anni o poco meno.

Thanks for your help. The full biography is here; this paragraph is on page 113. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-14 05:11

Since the text was composed by very long sentences, and since I am not a good translator, the English below sounds really bad. Feel free to improve it and ask me wherever it is unclear. gala.martin (what?) 18:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, we see that he never got nothing from Chiapino, to whom, in the Epistle dedicatory (dated December 10th 1550, in Anghiari), he communicated his early departure from his native land. I add that it seems that the author himself did never cite this work later on; but he was used to quote often his works, and still he did never cite this one. Anyway, in the dedication of Fortificazione al Re di Spagna (Fortification to the King of Spain), since the circostance was suitable (and it seems he was sorry about that), he says that he wrote these lyrics when he was young; and he said young because, when in 1543 the war (that is the content of the work) between the GhelAria and Cleves Dukes broke out, he was 23 or younger.

i've put reverted your changes to Fiji and Geography of Fiji, not because i think you are incorrect (in fact i know nothing about the heights of our peaks) but simply because the figure of 1200 m has been around for quite some time in both articles, and shouldn't be changed without some providing some reference. --Xorkl000 00:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this provides a reliable reference. Anyway, you can find the height of Mount Tomanivi almost everywhere in the web. Note also that the exact heigth (1324 m) is reported in this wikipedia page. gala.martin (what?) 14:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good enough for me. --Xorkl000 07:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue I - March 2006
Project news An independent military history peer review has been created for the benefit of the project. A number of articles have already been reviewed, receiving significantly more feedback within the project than they did on the generic peer review page. The project's Collaboration of the Fortnight got off to a great start with Ferdinand Foch and is now focusing on the military history of Spain. Two new task forces—dealing with warfare during classical antiquity and the Middle Ages—have been created. An effort to build a catalogue of high-quality maps for use in military history articles is now underway. The newly-formed translation department is looking for volunteers to help with translating featured articles from other-language Wikipedias.	From the Coordinators Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Military history WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this new format will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new groups and programs within the project that they may wish to participate in. Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome, and will help us improve the newsletter in the coming months. Kirill Lokshin, Lead Coordinator
Current proposals Proposed guidelines for categories of military people are currently being discussed. A number of issues have already been resolved, but the proposed scheme is still in draft form and further input would be very welcome.

delivered by Loopy ^e 04:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I, too, have reverted editors who cannot grasp the concept of prominence, but I don't think it's bad faith or vandalism. Personally, I am not happy about the topographic prominence page. I have thought about adding something like "readers who cannot grasp the definitions should imagine the sea level rising to the exact level at which the peak in question becomes the highest point on an island. The prominence of that peak is the height of that island. What do you think? Viewfinder 09:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course it was not vandalism. The editor did not grasp the concept of prominence, and misunderstood the example of the Everest South Peak (prominence 10 m), with the main peak. I found the article about prominence quite clear (honestly, I learnt there its meaning); anyway I think your image of "rising up the sea level" should work.

Just discussing about prominence, I wonder if there exist also calculations about what I would call absolute prominence, that is prominence not referred to sea level, but to the lowest point of the Crust. This is not really interesting for mountaneers, but it is in order to understand the regularity of the shap of our planet. gala.martin (what?) 02:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will add the rising sea level sentence to the article. The problem may also be editors whose first language is not English and to whom the article is not so clear. Another problem may be editing by those who cannot be bothered to read the article. Imo the latter should be treated with contempt, not encouraged.

Re what I would call lithospheric prominence, yes this would be quite interesting, I might start a thread on the prominence e-group about this. Aconcagua would gain only the depth of the Bering Strait and most of the other high ranking summits would gain nothing, but island high points like Mauna Kea, Pico de Teide and Mount Cook would be promoted, and there would be several oceanic newcomers. But accurate saddle information would not be possible. Viewfinder 04:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misprinted a link in my reply, so that crust appeared as geology (??). Fortunately, I see you understood what I meant. As far as the lithosperic prominence is concerned, I agree with you: interesting, but not-that-easy to calculate accurately. I will give a look at the prominence e-group. Thank you. gala.martin (what?) 13:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A watered-down version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 12:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I wans't aware of how it viewed on Firefox seeing as I use IE. Before I fix it, is it just the Userboxes Template or are the Cricket and Politics ones badly aligned as well? Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Firefox, the Wikiproject Politics userbox is not below the Wikiproject indian cinema and Wikiproject Hinduism boxes, but aside. The Cricket and History boxes are aligned properly below. In IE, the cinema and Hinduism boxes are placed one aside of the other, and the other three are below. I have just tried to fix it, unsuccesfully. gala.martin (what?) 12:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this better? Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is worst. Now also the Userbox project userbox is aside! I am using firefox, running from Linux now. gala.martin (what?) 14:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also the browser Konqueror shows a bad alignment. User:Gala.martin

I tried again, is this better or is the Cricket box aside now as well? Sorry if I'm bothering you, but I only use IE, but I want my userpage to look alright on all browsers. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no bothering... happy to help. Anyway... the Cricket userbox is this badly aligned! I have tried to move, insert lines, spaces, <br> , etc, but there is always some userbox aside. gala.martin (what?) 13:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving up for now. Anyway, I was planning to change the look of my userpage in the next week or so, I don't like it any more. So I'll leave you a message when I've completely revamped the page and see whether it looks alright. Thanks for the help. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my userpage to this, does it all look fine?? Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! It works perfectly now!! gala.martin (what?) 01:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I imagine, UNZA has a technical problem with its website. I was there in June last year and everything was business as usual. Plenty students, plenty activity. Lycaon 07:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. gala.martin (what?) 13:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The April 2006 issue of the project newsletter is now out. You may read this issue or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following the link. Thanks. Kirill Lokshin 18:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]