User talk:Jorge Stolfi/Archive 2
 | This 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Chemical Symbols
Please consult the following page to ascertain the proper chemical symbols: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elements_by_symbol (i.e., Magnesium = Mg) Also, SiAl, SiMg are chemical compounds, and while not an exact chemical formula, they do indicate the presence of those chemical elements Jchurchward (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Grassmann/Plücker
Thank you very much for the review.
Extended tutorials are discouraged, and perhaps moved to Wikibooks. On the other hand, we also get irate complaints about mathematics articles being completely useless to anyone but an expert. The "Geometric intuition" section which begins the article is deliberately more informal and tutorial; it even includes a picture! (Some of our mathematics editors have complained about silly pictures in articles, though not specifically about this one.) After that, however, the style becomes more Spartan. (No more pictures!) Wikipedia has such a diverse audience, we've generally tried to follow this kind of pattern where possible. Still, for a topic only a mathematically advanced reader could absorb, we may abandon the general reader in the opening paragraph. The impossible articles are the ones almost anyone might try to read.
Recently I've had discussions about the scope of the name "Plücker coordinates". For some, it seems that Grassmann has been shoved aside in favor of using "Plücker coordinates" for more than just line coordinates in 3D. That is, what Hodge & Pedoe called "Grassmann coordinates" (both primary and dual), are now subsumed under the Plücker name. Two editors remarked:
- I was actually quite a bit put off by the article itself: in algebraic geometry these days no one talks about Grassmann coordinates, and everyone would scratch their head if you told them that Plücker coordinates apply to Gr(2,4) only!
- I have to say that 'Grassmann coordinates' holds no appeal for me as terminology. It would be better to have some good history, but to use 'Plücker coordinates' everywhere, IMO.
Do you have a strong opinion either way? (Skimming your home page at UNICAMP, it's hard to tell what you are actively pursuing, so I don't know if Plücker coordinates are a distant memory or a daily tool.) --KSmrqT 22:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
(Complaints by MER-C 12:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC) and Aksibot 22:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC) about the uncertain copyright status of Image:HeNoHeNoMoHeJi.png. Not sure of it myself; there was an original image, which someone else had provided. I may have made cosmetic edits to it. I may provide a new one if I get a round tuitt.
I have tagged this article in several ways. Could you get some peer-reviewed articles and web pages to verify this subject and the details of the article? Bearian 21:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Raster graphics cf. vector graphics
I am quite impressed by your user page. So much expertise!
I am interested: what is the use of raster graphics in contrast to vector graphics? The two articles did not resolve the question for me. In particular, which graphics editing (raster or vector) is better for analog pictures? Thank you, Dogru144 16:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, as far as I can see, you've added information about work made of pseudo-Geber.
It's something wrong with either his time of birth (the article said he was born in the 14th century), or the time his works was made (1310), unless he was less then 10 years old when he made the work.
The sentence saying "Pseudo-Geber was instrumental in spreading Islamic alchemical theories throughout western Europe", doesn't make sence if you compare it with the sentence saying "In any case, Pseudo-Geber's work reflects 14th century European alchemical practices rather than earlier Arab ones".
I don't know where you got this information, I don't have any sources. But something is wrong in the article-. Grrahnbahr 18:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
from learnportuguese
Hi! :) I'm really interested in the Portuguese language. I found your page through the talk page of an article on Brazilian Portuguese. Just put a watch on my user page and talk page if you want. I am American, by the way. Um, if i get this right, Quero aprender Português porque quero ser jornalista (for radio). :) learnportuguese 23:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
learnportuguese
I'm interested very much in the Portuguese language. Just check out my user page and talk page. If you put a watch on my user page, Wikipedia software will automatically also watch my talk page. Have fun! :) learnportuguese 01:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Vijay Park
An article that you have been involved in editing, Vijay Park, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijay Park (2nd nomination). Thank you. --B. Wolterding 19:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Removal of In Plain English section
Hi, please don't remove the plain English section, it is definitely clearer to me and to the people that I have shown it to than the rest of the article which is laden in heavy mathematical terminology. If you feel it's misleading, consider improving it instead of deleting the entire section. Thank you. -- itistoday (Talk) 22:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
It is the name of the cosmetic so both words should be capitalize like Toronto Blue Jays. In future, before you move an article, please discuss it on the articles talk page to get a consensus. Chessy999 23:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- No it is a brand, that is what it is called. Chessy999 21:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
hi
Hi. I found you in categories of users who can contribute in English and Portuguese. I myself am a native speaker of English, but I'm well on my way to learning Portuguese. Just check out my user page and talk page, and join in any of the discussions. To keep updated, you can even put a watch on my user page, which will automatically watch my talk page. :-) learnportuguese (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Voynich Manuscript at FAR
Voynich Manuscript has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Portuguese Settlement, Malacca
I have nominated Portuguese Settlement, Malacca, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portuguese Settlement, Malacca. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? H2H (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Superellipsoid and superquadrics
Hi, I noticed that you have written some interesting content for the two articles on superellipsoid and superquadrics. These are now linked to the computer vision category but there is nothing in the articles which relate them to this field. Can you please write something about their application in this field? Should they also be linked to the computer graphics category? --KYN (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hello. The category "Computer Vision" was already there when I started editing those articles. I don't know of any major application in that area. Superquadrics and superellipsoids are indeed popular in computer graphics; e.g. the simplest model for a CRT screen in POV-Ray is a flattened superquadric. All the best, -- Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I have now changed the categories for the two articles to "computer graphics" instead of "computer vision". --KYN (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Spindle (disk packaging)
A tag has been placed on Spindle (disk packaging), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 03:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Caucasian
You have a link under lingustics to Caucasian which is a disambiguation page, I'm the one who is maintaining Caucasian now and was wondering if you had meant it to link there if you might have meant something like Peoples of the Caucasus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arenlor (talk • contribs) 10:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
citations missing
Hi Jorge, Sorry to be crossing swords with you again but I just saw that you moved the "citations missing" template from the top of the Subroutine article down to the very bottom, and I don't think that was the right thing to do, so I have undone it. Here's why:
- This template tells readers that an article (or section) does not satisfy the verifiability test (one of Wikipedia's three core content policies) which says:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
- If the template is at the beginning of the article or section, readers are alerted to the lack of verifiability before they read the content. This means they look at it in a different way - as a blog rather than as an encyclopedic entry. When you move the warning to the end of an article, some readers won't see it at all, and the remainder will have to re-read the article with a more critical mind set.
- In the specific case of the Subroutine article, it is really quite shocking that it has got to this stage ... 3,484 words (excluding examples) with only one minor reference! And bear in mind that some of the statements in the article are based on edits by Wiarthurhu, an account that has since been banned (e.g. some of the stuff about the HP-2100) - so it is all the mroe important to have citable references.
You may well be thinking "but that is an impossible task - it would take ages". Well, that's true. It can take hours to track down individual references. It could take weeks to fix the Subroutine article. But until someone puts that effort in, IMO the warning should be displayed loud and clear at the top of the page. - Pointillist (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
DYK for Minatogawa Man
|
On 23 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Minatogawa Man, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
07:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Pun
Hello, I have recently reverted material that you have added to Pun. Please try to find a third party source that describes the shows etc. as "pun-based" before re-introducing them to the article. Unlike term papers for schools where it is encouraged for writers to take primary evidence and place them together to support a claim or analysis, wikipedia considers that original research and does not allow it in articles. Instead, we find material published in reliable sources that has already made the claims and analysis - we simply collect work that others have done. If you have more questions, let me know either on my talk page or the Pun talk page. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I guess we have different priorities, and I am less willing to assume that material in articles has been added by experts who have forgotten where they acquired the knowledge. Cheers! -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
File:Aliasing-plot.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Aliasing-plot.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Navboxes are used all over the place in articles, so I don't really understand your objection, but if I changed them to footer boxes, would that assuage your "screen real-estate" qualm? --Cybercobra (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Note also per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates that categories and templates (and lists) serve distinct roles and aren't to be merged into the "one true organizational system", so your "use categories" suggestion isn't applicable. --Cybercobra (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
In point of fact, the Chinese dynasties navbox is actually vertical, not horizontal, but your point is understood. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I made some further modifications that I think address the issue. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Before you edit, please actually read the policies that are quoted to you. Per WP:DATE or, more specifically, WP:MOSBD, it states very clearly the following: Locations of birth and death are given subsequently rather than being entangled with the dates. Maybe this isn't the way it's done on other Wikis, but that's the policy here. 71.42.216.98 (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
License tagging for File:Carbon Monoxide timings Jorge Stolfi 2009-05-17 20-30.png
Thanks for uploading File:Carbon Monoxide timings Jorge Stolfi 2009-05-17 20-30.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Templates
I finally fixed not fixed everything. I remembered that there are problems with expansion of {{{1}}} expressions inside wikilinks. Ruslik (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, it does not appear to be so simple. Still does not work. Ruslik (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I spent so much on this! But the error was trivial: there is no #ifexists parser function! There is only #ifexist parser function! Simple error indeed. Ruslik (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
In short-form references " should be used instead of quote symbol ". Ruslik (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Carbon monoxide
I've noticed that you reverted my edit to carbon monoxide. I rearranged it to conform to the Chemistry Manual of Style WP:CHEMMOS which has been discussed and ratified by Wikiprojects Chemistry/Chemicals. Much thought indeed has gone into the manual of style. Particularly, the placement of the sections are supposed to have a logical flow:
- What is it? (Structure & properties)
- Where does it come from? How do we get it? (Occurence and production)
- What can we do with it? (uses and reactions)
As a side note, the biological properties should either go under "safety" with regard to its toxicity, and "biosynthesis" with regard to its production in the body.
The article as you reverted lacks this flow. I fail to see how it is any more useful to the reader. While the Chemistry/Chemicals wikiprojects may not be the final word on articles in general, we do do things for a certain reason, you know. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry I missed your reply. I do understand your point of view, (that these are of interest to non-chemists). Also, the WikiProject Chemistry/Chemicals does not pretend to "own" articles on Chemistry. However, bearing in mind that our editors are the ones with more expertise in this area than your average editor, and that we are the ones spending the most time on these articles, I do believe the MOS should be followed. The MOS is afterall, designed to give a consistent look and feel of related articles. As you said, this is an encyclopedia, not a random collection of monographs.
- If you do have a disagreement with the principles behind it, perhaps you should bring it up there for further discussion, such that we can come to an agreeable solution which we can apply across the board. After all, CO is not the only "common" chemical out there. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of @@/63318-s
A tag has been placed on @@/63318-s requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ridernyc (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Your template
{{@@/63318-s}} I can't begin to imagine the purpose of this template. It's simply some text which can be put into an article manually. The title is also bizarre. Could you enlighten me? :) ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Surely it's possible to give it a name which isn't quite so random? Like Template:Bibliography proposal/whatever ? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
A better solution for references
Just to say that, though I don't have time to get involved in this right now, I agree this is an issue that needs rethinking and wish you luck with your analysis. - Pointillist (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Reference
Hi, Regarding Vade retro satana and the statement (you said it is a fact) that there was no mention prior to the 15th century, do you:
- a. Have solid references that say that?
- b. Deduced that yourself from as a fact because you see no mention.
If case a), please provide a few references that say that. if case b) that is your own deduction and amounts to WP:OR and can not be included.
The sentence that it has appeared on the St Benedict medal for centuries does have solid references, e.g. J. of Brit Arch. society and must be included. I am hence restoring it.
Please inform me of a. vs b. so I can make a decision. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, I already responded on teh talk page for the article. And modified teh article to give a year. Please let us talk on the article talk page to be clear.
By the way your user page lead me to the Voynich manuscript... very interesting.... I think it is a hoax. Do you? Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Carrão vs "Vila Carrão"
I'm sorry, but we must have in the article what is officially recognized. "Vila Carrão" is only a minor and not formal division of the city. Moreover, one article per district for each city in the world is enough, and there is no reason for creating two separate articles, one for the administrative division and other for the historical area. Any mention for minor subdivisions should be placed in the main article about the district.Fsolda (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Pun and WP:PROVEIT
My comment is that all content involving analysis and interpretation must be attributed to a reliable third party source, and not a Wikipedia editor's original research. The fact that any of the authors actually used this form of punning must be shown to have been identified by a third party source with appropriate citation. Does that help clarify my edit summary?-- The Red Pen of Doom 22:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that Hamlet dies requires zero analysis. Recognizing a pun exists, particularly in a dead dialect, DOES require analysis. Thank you for your work in bringing the article up from a truly horrible state. It is however still lacking in sourced content and I do not feel bad about pushing for continued improvement. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Columbus's egg
Just FYI, regarding your statement, "AFAIK Columbus's is correct spelling and Columbus' isn't.", both are valid. You see "s's" more often in England and "s'" in America, and each is argued as correct by various style guides. I left your version per WP:ENGVAR rules, as it was there first. DreamGuy (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the conflict on HMT
Sorry, but I loaded my extended edit over yours and probably lost some of your changes, which I will try to recover. If you have any questions about my edits, feel free to ask or challenge them. I think we are both trying to do the same thing, improve the clarity. The gist of what I did/do: The refs were useless, I dont consider methylene a functional group; empirical formulae are in the table, so I tend to use only structurally descriptive formulas; organic and medicinal tend to over-rate their applications vs the drudgery of material production, etc. Cheers,--Smokefoot (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- thanks for the note. I am going to suggest that we move the article to "hexamethylenetetramine," which is what we call it around the lab. The pattern in the majority of articles is to minimize repetition with the ChemBox, hence the tendency to use a more descriptive formula presentation vs the empirical formula in the ChemBox - maybe this policy is something I should bring up in the Chemistry user group. I am a highly imperfect proofreader, so feel free to check up on me.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Phosphazenes and octachlorophosphazene
Hi again, I see that you are working on the phosphazene article. You do have good taste in interesting species. My own opinion is that the applicability of phosphazenes is over-hyped; I don't think that any commercial applications exist. Some missing aspects of these articles is their formation pathway, which involves P-N things related to PPNCl, and the hydrolysis of the phosphazenes which gives phosphate and ammonia, the benign nature of which is one of the selling points that Allcock pushed so hard.
If you are considering creating an article on octachlorophosphazene. My advice would be to not create a separate article on the tetramer, but to retitle the trimer article to something with a name that captures both the trimer and the tetramer. Their behavior and uses are intertwined.
So with those comments, happy editing. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I would disagree with your comment "so they [tetramer and trimer] must be placed in two separate articles (with separate infoboxes and such)." There are no "musts" around here. It is possible to have two Chemboxes in the same article, stacked up. This suggestion follows from my preference for one beefy article vs a very thin parallel articles. The Wikichem goal is not to become a catalogue of chemicals, but an encyclopedia (rich discussion of with emphasis on context). Also having separate trimer and tetramer articles requires more editorial work in the sense that one must maintain them in parallel (because the underlying principles and properties are so very similar). So I would recommend a unified article on cyclophosphazenes.
- With regards to your interest in CO oligomers, it is a fairly well developed theme. Ditto for many binary phases: C-S, C-N, etc. Cheers,--Smokefoot (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Pedro I of Brazil
Don´t worry, that was nothing! - --Lecen (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)