|This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
This is an odd question, but isn't it true that .333... equals 1/3rd? I got into a rather silly debate on a forum and they disagreed that .3repeating equals 1/3rd. - Lord Kenneth 03:30, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Yup, (I like TeX markup :) Bryan 03:32, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- See also Decimal, where this case is specifically mentioned.
Thanks. If you're curious as to how the debate got started, I started by saying to (someone who claimed to be a Mechanical Engineer) that they were wrong about 1 != .999...
My proof was something someone else once showed me. 1/3 = .333... 2/3 = .666.... So why then does 3/3 = 1 and not .999... unless they were the same thing?
Alas the moderator had locked the topic before I could cleanse them of their ignorance. I shall do so via PM. - Lord Kenneth
- They are indeed the same thing. You can probably prove this using limits; . :) Bryan 03:46, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- If the guy doesn't understand high school algebra he is unlikely to understand, much less be convinced by, arguments based on limits. You might try the following. Let x = 0.3333... Then 10x is 3.333... Subtract 3 from this and you get 0.333... = x back again. So x is a solution to the equation 10x - 3 = x. But this is a linear equation which only has one solution, namely x = 3. This is standard technique for converting repeating decimals to rational (p/q) form that we all were supposed to have learned in 9th grade algebra. Grizzly 03:50, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Heh! For some reason, I don't think we were taught that approach in high school. It's the first I've seen it, at any rate. It's nice. Bryan 05:04, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thumbnail map for Counties of Romania
Hi. Sorry that I had to revert your conversion to thumbnail image on the map of the Counties of Romania article, because the resulting image was not very efficient (it has 160k, while before your conversion it had 33k), since thumbnail feature was created for small images, not large images like maps. Bogdan | Talk 21:33, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Oh. Well, alrighty, then. I'll go take it off of the images for deletion page, in that case. :) Bryan 04:19, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Not sure either that thumbnailing the image at Voynich manuscript produces a good result; when I made that image, I reduced it to true black and white, so it is not a large file; reduced in size, it is just a bunch of specks. Is there a place where the new image code is explained? -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:30, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's a little ugly via autothumbnail. However, the image was pretty large, so having the text flow around it in a tiny column down the side was a little ugly too. Perhaps it would work better as a non-floating image? Anyway, the new image markup is described here: Wikipedia:Extended image syntax and discussed in the associated Wikipedia talk: page. Bryan 16:31, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sorry about that! I must have accidently submtted an older version (from which i had been copying the image synax) instead of the current one also open in my browser. Sennheiser! 18:27, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- That's alright, I figured it had to be accidental. Fixing the problem was super-easy. :) Bryan 03:04, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Do not use my name
I had my name changed so that it would not be associated with the offensive and vulgar liable which is unfortunately so common on this site. I ask you, in the strongest possible terms, not to use my name. Sam Spade 06:15, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it's relevant. You're the same person as before, and so these are the same issues we've dealt with before. Just changing your name isn't going to make your history here evaporate as if it never was. Bryan 06:19, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The history of my account is available to anyone who takes a look at my contributions list. Your mentioning of my name serves only to bring insult, disrespect, and personal endangerment opon myself. DO NOT do it again. Sam Spade 06:22, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I'll do it as often as I think it needs to be done. You seem to be trying to resume the same old argument on Atheism that we went through before, so it's relevant that you are who you were back then and all those entries about it in the talk: pages were by you. If you've got a brand new reason why you think the Atheism article is NPOV, then by all means tell us about it on that article's talk: page. Otherwise, you're just picking up the old edit war where you left it off as far as I'm concerned. Bryan 06:25, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Well, thank God for that. :) Bryan 06:54, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yes, of course you're right, it's not the way to handle edit wars, but isn't it rather desirable to get the attention of the warriors? And if they don't ever look at articles' talk pages--? (or respond to direct messages, or even have a personal Talk page?) Anyway, while you were reverting the text (no complaint from me), I was filing the proper complaint on the disputed-articles page. Maybe just getting somebody to protect the page is the only way to get these donkeys' attention. Or is that a personal attack? Dandrake 08:39, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, page protection can sometimes help. Alternately, if you want to send a message specifically to editors rather than to non-editing readers, how about adding an HTML comment? <!-- like this -->. Editors will see it in the page source, but it's not visible otherwise. Bryan 08:43, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- You got me there. Ought to have seen that for myself, but I didn't. It doesn't pay to get pissed off, which I thought I knew already. Dandrake 08:54, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
Sam Spade has requested mediation between you and him. Are you willing to accept this? If so, please could you express any preferences regarding who should mediate your dispute? The members of Wikipedia:Mediation Committee are the recommended choice, but you may ask anyone if you like. Please note at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation which mediators are acceptable to you, or ones that you would refuse to accept. You may also e-mail me if you do not want your concerns publically posted - I will keep all communication as private as you like. (angela AT fused.org). Alternatively, if you decide against mediation, please can you let one of the mediation committee know your decision. Thanks. Angela. 19:21, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Sure, I'm willing. I'm not exactly sure what needs being mediated (though based on his various complaints about me I can make some guesses :), but I suppose that'll be presented by Sam. Bryan 20:13, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I. J. Good
Why did you move I. J. Good to -- of all things -- Irving Good? Does anyone call him "Irving"? He is always called "Jack Good", except that his publications appear under the name "I. J. Good". "Jack Good" or even "John Good" would make more sense. Michael Hardy 21:48, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I moved it because when I saw that article his name was listed as "Irving John Good", and so I foolishly assumed that it would be reasonable to have his article under a title of the form "firstname lastname" like most other biographical articles on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the article failed to mention how nonsensical that would be; the "(called Jack)" had no useful context. Bryan 22:03, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
New image markup
Hi, Bryan. I noticed that you used the new image markup at Alabama Hills. I should tell you that I converted a bunch of Sierra photos over to the new image markup (automatically generating thumbnails from the largest resolution). But, a lot of these photos were taken by mav, who pointed out that he not only downsampled to get the 300px, he also cropped. So, if we use the new image markup, we lose information. I reverted all of my changes (including in Alabama Hills, you can see in the history) and decided to wait for the image markup to allow a non-automatic thumbnail.
Now, in the particular case of Alabama Hills, it looks OK: I don't believe that mav cropped here. I re-added my caption to the article. But, I wanted to give you a heads-up on the issue. -- hike395 02:47, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Alabama Hills is OK - I didn't crop those thumbs. --mav
- Okey-dokey. :) Bryan 07:36, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hi Brian! Here is an extract from Wikipedia:Images for deletion:
START OF EXTRACT
- Image:Gravitational lens-thumb.jpg
- Thumbnails made obsolete by the autothumbnail feature too Bryan 08:14, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- KEEP. I strongly object. I put Abell and Gravitational Lens pics onto WP. It's perfectly possible that if the new code proves unsuitable I might go back to the old code (for example, in the new code we can't have caption italics, caption text centring nor caption links). If thumbnails are deleted I'll have to reupload them which would be unacceptable. PLEASE DO NOT DELETE ABEL AND GRAVITATIONAL THUMBNAILS. Adrian Pingstone 23:03, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
END OF EXTRACT
I don’t understand why thumbnails are being deleted at all since it would take 50000 of them to even make 1 Gigabyte (assuming each is 20K) and the entire WP database is 19 GB (if I remember correctly).
Even though I’ve worked every day since January 2003 on illustrations I’ve still “only” put on 800 thumbnails. Thumbnails are not going to materially affect the size of WP and so are not really worth the trouble of transferring their names to IFD.
However the stronger argument is that the new code is not fully satisfactory yet. We need to keep the ability to revert to the old code (and therefore use the old thumbs) if it was ever necessary. I would very much appreciate it if you do not list on IFD any thumbs with file names containing arp or ***pix.
I don’t understand how Jiang’s code solves my problems with the new code. The old caption standard was italics, text centred and links were possible. None of that works now. I already know the code for setting thumbnail size. Do you know the code for the three caption adjustments I can’t do?
I hope you can understand my concerns and leave my thumbnails off IFD.
Adrian Pingstone 09:55, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- The reason I've been putting them up for deletion is not space concerns, but simply because they're orphans and I don't see them becoming non-orphans again at any point in the future now that there's code for thumbnailing. Even if you have a problem with the current formatting of image captions, you can still use the autothumbnail feature to get exactly the same result as before; try [[Image:something.jpg|250px|] and you should get a thumbnail image without any of the extra bells and whistles that the "thumb" keyword currently provides. But I think it's best to use thumbs and captions, since that way the Wikipedia software will actually understand what text is caption and what text isn't; one could potentially have different skins that display captions in different ways, modify thumbnail sizes to fit on different resolution monitors or for the visually impaired, etc. There's discussion of all these issues over on Wikipedia:Extended image syntax and the respective Wikipedia talk: page.Bryan 16:18, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Just seen your notification regarding this poll on G/g. thanks for notifying. Since I have no idea on this topic I will prefer to ignore it for now, at least until I develop some opinion. Optim 16:21, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hello. I read that you noted "there's an inconsistancy about All Saints Day that I don't know how to resolve." and was under the impression that you'd delete this text:
- "This ancient custom was Christianized in the feast of All Saints Day, established in Rome first on May 13, in order to de-paganize the Roman Lemuria. In the 8th century, as the popular observance of the Lemuria had safely faded over time, the feast of All Saints was shifted to November 1, coinciding with the similar Celtic propitiation of the spirits at Samhain. Pope Gregory III (731-741) consecrated a chapel in the Basilica of St. Peter to all the saints and fixed the anniversary, not by chance, for 1 November.
- The idea that this festival was the origin of that of All Saints, which was moved later to November 1, has now been abandoned by Roman Catholics."
I hope we may discuss precisely what needs to be improved at the site (because I care about the history of it). Tell what your objections are, at Talk:Feast of the Lemures and make the entry clear, historical, accurate. Wetman 06:05, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Just so you know, when I left that note on Rfm that I was willing to mediate, I kind of assumed that you'd see it there. In any event, I repeat here my offer to mediate, subject to the stipulations on the Rfm page. Sam/Jack seems willing to accept me. If you do as well, we can move forward. Otherwise (and I understand if you don't want to accept my mediation) you should propose an alternative mediator and see if Sam/Jack is willing to agree. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:24, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I saw it and I accepted, and Angela updated the Rfm "progress bulletins" section accordingly. After that I was just waiting for some indication of what to actually do now that everything seems in order. Since I'm not the initiator of this complaint, I figured Jack would contact you with his grievances (I'm still not entirely sure what they are myself) and then we'd get in touch to talk about them or something like that. Want me to email you? Bryan 16:35, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Take a look at my talking points and references, if you like. You appear to be confused, or unwilling to understand why I am unhappy with my experiences with you. Perhaps this will do half of Dantes job for him right here, by letting you know where I am coming from. Sam Spade 11:00, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Kudos for offering to point-man a fix of the article. Don't be surprised if 172 et. al. jump out of the woodwork though. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 20:28, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks, I hope I won't trigger an edit war in the process. But the article as it stands is incredibly hard to read, so I felt like I had to do something. Bryan 20:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I have a very bad feeling about this. The article will remain a target as long as there are folks on the wikipedia who wish to paint Finland as a fascist ally of Nazi Germany. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 22:57, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
- I still consider myself to be pretty much a blank slate on this article, since I've never read up on the subject from other sources before. So I'll keep an eye on things, and if it looks like a war is building up I think I can trust myself to temporarily protect the article with minimal bias while things cool down a bit. I'm responsible for jarring things out of their previous stasis, so I'm willing to take responsibility for trying to make sure nothing awful results from it. :) Bryan 01:23, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Good recent edits. Sam Spade 06:51, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I'm so glad I have your approval. Bryan 07:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Image code questions
Can you explain more, please, on how to have my caption text centred, italicised and with active links and use the new code.
In Wikipedia:Images for deletion you said:
***Yes you can - just use the same old html markup but fmt the link as [[image:name|250px|blablahblah]] and your image will be limited to 250px.
Unfortunately I don’t know what you meant. Is it something like this?
<div style="float:right; margin-left:10px; margin-right:10px; width:250px; text-align:center"> [[image:caf.f5.750pix.jpg|thumb|center|250px|]]<small>''Canadian Air Force CF-5 Freedom Fighters.'' </small></div>
That does give a thumbnail, a clickable magnifying glass and a caption I can customise. The only snag is a slightly ugly blank grey bar to the left of the magnifying glass where the title would normally be. Is this the penalty for having the caption customisable?
If my code is all wrong can you let me know the correct code?
One further request. Would it be possible for you to set your thumbs to 250px instead of the default 180px? I find 180 a little too small on my 1024 by 768 screen. If you approve would you mind putting in 250px from now on? Thanks for any help,
Adrian Pingstone 14:33, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- If you leave out the "thumb" option, you get the same result without the grey box and the magnifying glass;
However, I personally would almost never leave out the thumb option because it automatically lets the user know there's a bigger version available by clicking. As for the default size, I've been hoping that at some point soon Wikipedia will add the ability to set your own personal default thumbnail size, so I've been avoiding setting a specific size unless it's actually important to the image. Small thumbnails aren't as pretty but they load fast. However, I'm not fixated on that, so I haven't been going around reducing existing thumbnails. I'll try to remember to set the "arp" images to 250 in the future. Bryan 16:33, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Can do. Bryan 10:19, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Just a little note to commend you on your excellent demeanor with respect to mediation. Your situation, successfully resolved, is an example of how well mediation can work when two committed people participate honestly and fairly. Good work!! --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:17, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)