User Talk:Fly by Night

Year 2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Year 2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

I don't understand

I added a new job title, a new title for an organizational unit at NIST, and an internet movie database reference for Tim's television work, which was unreferenced. What precisely is wrong with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.217.183 (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Information added to the article of a living person is covered by the WP:BLP guidelines. These are very, very strict. If you want to change the article saying that he's changed jobs then you need to prove it. You need to use verifiable, third party references. No ifs, no buts; you've got to do it. What puzzles me is how you knew that IP user 129.6.180.141 made so many edits because of "inexperience with interface" and that you refer to the subject as "Tim". Just because you might know the other editor, or the subject of the article does not make you exempt from WP:VERIFY and WP:BLP. Here's a hypothetical situation: Let's say "Tim" hasn't changed his job, but someome messing around changes his article to say that he has. That might get him into some trouble with his employer, and that will get Wikipedia into trouble with "Tim". Even if he's your best friend, your father, or your brother, it doesn't matter. I know there's a lot to take in, and I'm sorry for reading the riot act, but WP:BLP is a big deal.— Fly by Night (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

He's a co-worker, and I made the edits and don't really know what I am doing. Ok, I'll try to find the links at the nist.gov web site with this information. But you also nuked my inclusion of the IMDb reference to his work on TV, so you are kind of being inconsistent. No refs is bad, including refs seems bad too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.217.183 (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean this reference? From the Internet Movie Database? It just lists some movies and sponsored links which, at best, simply make another series of unsubstantiated claims. If you need any help with the references, like including them or formatting them, then do please leave me a message and I'll be more than happy to help. Please believe me when I say that I don't want to stop you contributing; I just want it done properly. Things aren't so authoritarian in non-BLP article. Sorry to be so strong. — Fly by Night (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I perhaps put it in the wrong place - its a reference that at least partially validates his list of TV shows —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.217.183 (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine, heres the URL for his new appointment at the University of Maryland - how do I put it in with a note after his Johns Hopkins appointment? http://www.mse.umd.edu/facstaff/faculty-list.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.217.183 (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! If you copy and paste the following text right after the full-stop of the sentence you're using this reference to support then you'll be fine:

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mse.umd.edu/facstaff/faculty-list.html|title=Materials Science and Engineering Faculty|author=University of Maryland|accessdate=December 1, 2010}}</ref>

Drop me a line when you've done that and I'll check it's worked... Good luck. — Fly by Night (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to have worked. If I may, given your frequency of edits overall and the rather hasty use of the word "vandalism" when it really was just "ignorance", perhaps it's time for a pint and a bit of relaxation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.217.183 (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It did work, and I'm very pleased. That method of referencing will always work; just change the URL, the title, the author and the access date. But you'll need a reference section for it to appear at the bottom. If you do it and you get, after preview or save, lots of big red writing then there isn't already a references section. (There was on the article you just editied.) To add one, just do

== References ==

to give the article a bold subsection titled References, then type

{{reflist}}

right under it. The double curly bracket is a template. In this case the template is {{reflist}} and tells Wikipedia to compile all of the references into that nice, neat, clickable list at the bottom. Sorry for using the word vandalism. As I expressed above: I thought that you and 129.6.180.141 were the same editor. It seems that I was mistaken, and for that I apologise. Don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ so I can see who left me the message, and when they left it. As for a pint... well, I could murder one. My round! — Fly by Night (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fly by Night. You have new messages at Malcolmxl5's talk page.
Message added 23:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deleted article

Hi! Basically, this was a collection of incomplete sentences with lack of punctuation and capitalization thrown in with no real assertion of notability. The entire content read as follows:

A singer songwriter from Las palmas/Grand Canaria. Has an album out titled Just give it a try. Mother of Miguel Ahmet from a london based sound engineer Sahan Satis

These are the sorts of things which get deleted on a regular basis in regards to non-notable artists. There's also a complete lack of both content and context. Hope this helps.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It does help, thanks! — Fly by Night (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Anytime.  :) Thanks for asking and have a great weekend. Signing out for now.

PMDrive1061 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Help me out as I may be confused.

Help me out as I may be confused. You are asking for three archives to be deleted, but they don't appear to be extra copies of archives, they appear to the the archives themselves, which should not be deleted. What am I missing?--SPhilbrickT 20:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Maybe I've done something wrong. My archives where in a rather odd layout: before August and then two months at a time. I've split them up month-by-month, e.g. User_talk:Fly_by_Night/Archive_Nov_10 has November 2010's archive. There's no point me having empty pages, where the badly arranged archives used to be, clogging up my user space. So I thought I'd do a bit of house keeping. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You certainly know your archives better than I do, but let me give you an example.

If you search for the phrase "you were asking about French dialogue on the Rosie and Jim talk page" it shows up in archive2, and no where else. Unless I'm missing something, it shouldn't be deleted. I'll confess immediately that I'm not an expert on how archives should be maintained; I've struggled with my own and still don't think I've done them right. --SPhilbrickT 20:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Shhh, about the kid's programs! I've got a reputation to maintain. The search is coming back with that page because Wikipedia hasn't updated itself properly. I'm not sure about the technical terms, but once every day (or something) it updates itself. It's a bit like Google. It doesn't search all of Wikipedia the instant you click search. It scans Wikipedia before hand and stores the info. The search then searches that database. Until Wikipedia updates that database, all the search results will be out of date. The first day I included the search box, nothing came up. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. There's more info at Template:Archive_box#Search. You can rig it to search where ever you want. For example, I could tell it to search your archive if I wanted. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(BTW, I saw you offer to help a new editor. I hope they take you up on your offer. If you like helping new editors, I hope you will check out Requests for feedback sometime, we need some help.)--SPhilbrickT 20:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even know that page existed. I'll check it out. Thanks a lot. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry If I wasn't clear. If you are simply doing cleanup, I should find that phrase twice. Once on the page you want to delete, and once on the page you intend to keep. If I delete Archive2, then none of those talk page discussions will be searchable. The fact that I can find it only once tells me that I was about to delete the only copy of the talk page discussions. Do you agree?--SPhilbrickT 20:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No. That search button searches a database that was constructed by a daily search of Wikipedia. Like Google does. It doesn't search from scratch every time. We need to wait for Wikipedia to do a scan, to update the database, so that the search results will be found. The Rosie an Jim thread is on the new page User_talk:Fly_by_Night/Archive_Aug_10#Rosie_and_Jim. Like I said, I'm not sure of the technical terms. It's something to do with caches or something. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah OK, I think. Yes, I actually do have some understanding of how the database gets updated. (Some, not thorough). However, as I am a brand-new admin, would you mind terribly if I waited until tomorrow, so I can see the results with my own eyes, then I'll delete the redundant archives?--SPhilbrickT 21:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't mind. But I've already supplied you with links to where the archives are all stored. Just check my contributions.

Besides, it isn't actually mandatory to keep archives. I can delete my talk page as and when I choose. It simply acknowledges that I've read it. But if you're prefer to wait, then that's fine my me. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Almost an ec - I just realized I could check your contributions, so I did, and see the pages. Sorry for all this discussion over a trivial matter. --SPhilbrickT 21:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's alright; it's no problem :-) — Fly by Night (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide yo do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I appreciate you showing faith in me. I won't let you down. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: UN Principles of Medical Ethics

Hello Fly by Night. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of UN Principles of Medical Ethics, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Contains sufficient content to be a stub. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. At the time I tagged it the page looked like this. It was a single external link. — Fly by Night (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Alexandra Powers

Would you mind cleaning up the Alexandra Powers article. I added a reference and messed up. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 05:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fly by Night. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 21:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Statistics

Expanding a bit on my comment to you at WT:RFA, with a sample size that is literally millions of times greater than RfA, assuming a constant success vs. failure distribution in the population, getting anything remotely distant from that underlying success/failure rate is well-nigh impossible, whereas in a sample as small as 30, or even 100, it is remote, but not effectively 0. Of course, the underlying success/failure rate itself is not constant, but I was taking the liberty of "averaging it out" as it were. My point still stands though that statistically speaking it is MUCH MUCH MUCH easier to get a result that does not reflect the underlying choices in an RfA than a presidential election. One has a Z measured in the 3-6 zone (30 vs 100 people) the other has a Z > 251. -- Avi (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not the point I was making. In both cases it's a closed system. Having 60% of the vote from the whole electorate of 10 million people makes your approval no more valid that having 60% approval of another entire, disjoint electorate of 10 thousand people. If you had two elections in two countries, one with a larger population that the other, and the Presidents both won with 60%; then you can't possibly mean that the larger country's President is more deserving of the presidency than the smaller country's President. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was making a different point, in that it is harder to reach 51% of a large number than 70% of a small number under certain basic assumptions. -- Avi (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Pinched torus.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Pinched torus.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Françoise Tisseur

It seemed more like a stub to me although there is not really much more biographical information in the public domain, except from more details of her mathematical research gleaned from her publications. Some one else is working on a portrait of her for the page. Billlion (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree; it probably is a stub. Someone's working on a portrait? That sounds really cool. I hope they're a better artist than me. I'd end up with a stick woman. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Grid refs now allow spaces

Just come across the matter of spaces in grid refs in your talk archive. I feel rather guilty that it has taken me about four years to come up with this simple edit. Spaces in grid refs are now allowed. It would be better if we supported &nbsp; as well - I will give it some thought. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 17:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Apology

I am sorry for the dispute we had on the RfA before,

I was truly out of line,

and I apologise.

I am Sorry.

MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry about the late reply; my internet's been off for a few days. And yes: I have been paying the bills. I appreciate the message but don't worry about it: all's fair in love and RfA. — Fly by Night (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ian R. Porteous‎

Don't know if your aware but Ian R. Porteous‎ passed away reciently and there is a new article about him. You might want to have a look at the article.--Salix (talk): 01:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Salix. I already knew. I was going to dedicate an upcoming talk to him. Thanks for letting me know. — Fly by Night (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fly by Night. You have new messages at Bgwhite's talk page.
Message added 02:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

clopen for business

I'm the IP who has been asking you questions at clopen sets, and I wanted to let you know, I'm curious to hear your next response on that talk page. 64.202.138.67 (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. — Fly by Night (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Mathematics Reference Desk: Simultaneous Equations

I agree that the discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics#Simultaneous_equation should not take place. Did you consider it helpful to the OP in the first place to grumble over my answer? Bo Jacoby (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC).

Very much so, because it was incorrect. The values x = −2.55 and y = −2.74 are not solutions to the simultaneous equations 7x − 12y = 15 and y − 5x = 10. Notice that 7×(−2.55) − 12×(−2.74) = 15.03 ≠ 15 and (−2.74) − 5×(−2.55) = 10.01 ≠ 10. The correct answers, as I supplied are x = −135/53 = −2.5471698113207 and y = −145/53 = −2.7358490566037. The fact of the matter is that you used the wrong method to solve what is an elementary problem. For some reason you used your computer to give numerical solutions to some other, more difficult, derived problem. Instead of just admitting you'd made a mistake you went on the attack and started to make farcical claims. Don't just take my word for it; if you know another mathematician then email him/her and ask them which of the above is the correct answer. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

See for example [[1]]. The solution to x^5+x^4-3=0 is written 1.09404. If you request exact form you get x = [root of x^5+x^4-3 near x = 1.09404]. So you get the equation and the approximation, and that's all. I did the same thing: expressed the equation and the approximate solution. The use of numerical fractions and infinite decimal fractions are less general and outdated. See also numerical analysis and algebraic equation. I wanted to provide to the unknown OP the modern approach. Your know-it-all attitude is in my opinion not improving my answer. Bo Jacoby (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC).

No, the solution is written as x ≈ 1.09404 which means that x is approximately 1.09404. A quick calculation shows that

$(1.09404)^{5}+(1.09404)^{4}-3=-0.24025\neq 0\,.$

A modern approach? Is the modern approach to maths to supply incorrect solutions?! Why do you always insist on moving the goal posts? The OP's question was to solve two linear simultaneous equations which can, and should, be solved exactly. Of course there are degree five equations with no such solution; but the OP didn't ask about degree five equations. I'm guessing that you're not actually a mathematician or you wouldn't be writing such rubbish. Do me a favour: go and ask another mathematician (or a school boy on a bus) for the correct answer before you continue to be so obtuse. You're just making a fool out of yourself now, and you're annoying the hell out of me. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)