User talk:Army1987/Archive 1

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

[untitled]

Don't delete large chunks of text out of articles without discussion as to why. RickK 21:20, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Empty product

Hello. Your addition to the end of a paragraph in empty product flatly contradicts what is stated earlier in the paragraph. If your edit is to make any sense, you would need to change those earlier parts of the paragraph as well. Howevers, you raise an issue that should perhaps be addressed. Could you bring it up on the discussion page? Michael Hardy 23:28, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I once read somewhere that 00 is indeterminate, because 00 = 01-1 = 01/01 = 0/0 which is indeterminate.

And the proof that n0 = 1 to which I'm most familiar is n0 = n1-1 = n1/n1 = n/n = 1 which of course doesn't apply if n = 0. --Army1987 11:26, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The sense in which 00 is indeterminate is that if f(x) and g(x) both approach 0 as x approaches something then f(x)g(x) may approach any positive number, depending on what functions f and g are. But for many purposes, including both formal power series and convergent power series, and many of the purposes of combinatorics and probability, one should take 00 to be 1. Michael Hardy 19:17, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Guitar

I deleted the stuff about coins as picks and Bryan May from the intro for guitar because it doesn't really belong there. If you can add it (and as much more information as you know) to the article on guitar picks that'd be great though --KayEss 16:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Planck units

i am deleting the note regarding musical scale and the Planck angular frequency. it's a little cute, but i don't think it's of interest to those reading the article seriously. one could make similar notes for every other Planck unit and all that would do is clutter the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbj (talk • contribs) 03:35, 2 February 2005 (UTC)

Uses of trigonometry

As for the "number theory" section: Well, but in order to know which fractions are in lowest terms I have to already know the factorisation of 42, then I can evalue the Moebius function simplily using the definition. Therefore that formula is pretty useless.

Earlier I answered thus:
I find the word therefore above to be a gross non-sequitur. Michael Hardy 21:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Now I have more time, so I will elaborate. Obviously you can evaluate (I assume you meant "evaluate") the Moebius function without using trigonometric functions. When I wrote that section, I certainly did not have in mind using trigonometric functions to evaluate the Moebius function. What I had in mind was using the connection between the Moebius function and trigonometric functions in order to apply Fourier analysis to number theory. Michael Hardy 23:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I understand this, but the wording could be misunderstood as implying that a primality test can be made using trigonometric functions and used in cryptanalysis to crack public key crypto, or something like that. Surely it's not what it's meant. --Army1987 11:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
PS: I would help to sign your comments. That way one could know without looking at the edit history that the person who wrote your comment quoted above was not the same person who wrote the paragraph that followed it. Michael Hardy 23:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, next times I'll have to remember to sign my comments... :---Army1987 11:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC))
OK, I've added some comments to the article to clarify the point that you missed. Michael Hardy 23:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quark

Your edit summary to Quark[1] is puzzling, as the denominators for charges were clearly 3 before. Were you having difficulty reading them? Susvolans (pigs can fly) 10:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, my browser showed them as 2's. In general, IMO one-character vulgar fractions are better avoided.
Just out of interest, what is your browser and operating system? Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
IE 6.0 WinXP. Now I looked at that version again, and discovered that they were 2's only in Medium and Very Small font sizes. In Very Large, Large and Small they are 3's. I understand that very small could be too small to clearly show the 3's, but I wonder why Small shows 3's and Medium shows 2's... there must be a bug in the font, I guess.


E flat? Sure, why not.

If you have the data to evaluate out-of-tuneness of harmonics relative to equal temperament in the harmonic series article, by all means edit away. I rewrote most of the surrounding text but left the list and graphic "as is". My experience as a piano technician tells me they're ALL out of tune to some extent in the physical world, and that even equal temperament itself can't be specified as an unchanging set of frequencies any more than it can be tuned with an unchanging set of beat rates. Veg0matic 03:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

see Talk:harmonic series (music)

CFerror

Done, thanks. Radiant_>|< 14:11, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

sorry, i thought ordinary mathematics was basic mathematics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamnedix (talk • contribs) 17:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Millennial Wikipedians

Category:Millennial Wikipedians has been listed on categories for deletion. Since you are using it on your user page please weigh in on the vote and that of the other generational categories here. Thanks. -JCarriker 19:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Riemann zet pictures

Hi,

Thanks for taking the time to create the reimann zeta pictures, ... but ... in my browser, they look terrible; they're fading into white. I think its the image resizing, its cutting out pixels. Would it be possible to have you redraw the pictures with a heavier line weight, so that when they get resized small, they still have impact?

Also, could you make a picture of Re zeta vs. Im zeta? I find that picture quite dramatic, as it spirals around, with all of the spirals going through zero. Anyway, thanks. linas 01:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

1. I've made it with a shareware program whose trial period expired right yesterday... (Honest!) However I can try editing the current one with Paint Shop Pro, but no promise that I'd manage to create something decent...
Done.--Army1987 09:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
2. I wouldn't even know how to. Howewer I saw one on http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RiemannZetaFunction.html, but I don't know its copyright status.--Army1987 09:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
F*** it...
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/about/faq.html#copyright--Army1987 09:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Italy or UK?

Why are you listed on Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Italy but categorized as from UK?--Army1987 10:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, because I was born in and grew up in Italy, yet happen now to be living in the UK. Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Italy is meant to include wikipedians originally from Italy. Category:UK Wikipedians is a little bit greyer, but I guess it is being replaced by Category:Wikipedians in the United Kingdom, which I would count as. Though only for another two weeks, after which I guess I'll have to change it.
If you're question is to work out whether I ought to be in Category:Wikipedians in Italy, well I don't know. The page says "...or are associated with Italy", so I'd say yes. If the categorizers want to be strict and include only those who are currently living in Italy, well I guess no. I doesn't really matter to me. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 10:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Then I suggest you to include yourself in both categories (and remove yourself from the list).--Army1987 17:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

System of a Down edits

Hi Army1987. I've discussed this issue at length as Pasboudin and also as 66.36.x.x when I was unregistered. The same issue has been debated at Talk:System of a Down and Talk:Mezmerize, so you may wish to check the discussions on these pages for background. Talk:System_of_a_Down#Album_mixup_rumor is a particularly good discussion. Pasboudin 21:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't dare to touch that paragraph anymore. Let's see the results of the votes. IMHO, we'd better keep the paragraph in its Rhobite version, or maybe even better in its Norvy version, until Hypnotize is released, then use the what-will-we-expect-to-read-in-year-2015 rule of thumb. --Army1987 12:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Yup. Since you don't think the Mike version should be there any more, maybe consider a vote change? Pasboudin 21:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
If by "Mike version" you mean that prolix ungrammatical crap, well, I've never thought it should be there. The version in the text of the poll is the one Rhobite wrote in spite of protection. My vote is for that, but I would also consider Norvy version. In addition to that, I provided "improved" (IMVHO) versions of Norvy and Rhobite versions.--Army1987 21:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Er... The matter is about what is meant by "majorly rewrite", I changed my mind.--Army1987 21:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Look at all those languages!

That's a lot of languages, how did you learn all of those?!!! I'll wait for you to come back, though.

Kinneyboy90 01:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

As for English, I've been studying it for ~10 years, I used to play lots of computer games in English, to use (and still use) some computer programs in English, I listen lots of music in English, surf websites in English etc... so I'm quite fluent in it. (Last year I scored 4 out of 5 at the end of an English course in Oxford, and this year I think I'm gonna take the FCE exam.)
I used to study French at school (since September 1998 to June 2001), but I'm no longer fluent in it. Anyway I still understand it well enough to use an article as a source for writings in one's own language and to ask or answer simple questions as WikiBabel says (and I manage to understand something in French TV news). I picked up a little Spanish by playing Spanish Pokémon Red (no, I'm not joking) — however Spanish is very similar to Italian. Once you can speak Italian, French and Latin it's no problem to learn to understand Spanish at least at a basic level.
As for Europanto, that's not a "serious" language, I used it before even knowing it had a name (and, yes, I've had conversations in Europanto too, though only with Italian speakers).
I study Latin at school. However, in Italy they just teach you to translate texts from Latin to Italian using a dictionary, usually at a speed of ten lines of text an hour or less; I would not be able to directly write in Latin, or would be able with some difficulty, so I decided to downgrade myself from la-2 to la-1.
I have also some basic knowledge of Japanese and German (i.e. counting, greeting, saying simple sentences...) but I'm unable to read encyclopedic articles in these languages, so I left them out. --Army1987 13:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Zamnedix

Lol thanks, dude. I realize that now. --Ukiki 00:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a quick note of thanks for making the user-vocal categories, nice work, it's much appreciated. Alf melmac 12:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Millennial Wikipedians

If you feel like merging Millennial Wikipedians into Millennial Generation Wikipedian, I will not object—as it does not change the name but reaches the specificity that you desire. Also, please be careful about posting user cats on Cfd in the future, CFD is not as constructive an environment as Vfd. Thanks. -JCarriker 22:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

You mean that I should recat user pages by myself? --Army1987 20:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
You don't have to do it alone, but there is a precedent for recating user pages when a cat has been moved (if that is your concern). -JCarriker 08:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Where might I ask other people to help me? However when I have some time I'll recat the ones I manage. --Army1987 13:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

devil power

ciao army. pensa che fortuna (per non dire altro), dovevo fare una domanda sul grafico dell'equazione z di Riemann e gia ero preoccupato di come scriverla e ho beccato l'unico\a (o uno\a dei\lle pochi\e) italiani\e di en.wiki. vorrei metterre Image:Criticalline.png nella pagina Italiana dell'Ipotesi di Riemann (vai su Riemann hypothesis e poi nella colonna a sinistra "other languages" vai su "italiano") ma non riesco a spostare l'immagine da en.wiki a it.wiki. siccome vedo dalla cronologia dell'immagine che l'hai messa tu, potresti inserirla nella pagina italiana? grazie 1000. non mi posso firmare perchè non sono registrato su en.wiki ma se vuoi ripondermi vieni su

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Red_devil_666

P.S. scusa per le differenze maschile\femminile ma dal nickname non capisco se sei maschio o femmina... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.94.208.44 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

post P.S. complimenti per l'ottima musica che ascolti e per i gusti in materia di cartoni animati —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.94.208.44 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

devil power

grazie per aver messo l'immagine comunque approfitto per chiederti una cosa: se l'hai fatta tu con un programma, mi puoi consigliare il nome di un programma che disegna le funzioni che mi serve per studiare (anche se non dovrei usare wiki per fini personali)? comunque ancora non ho capito se sei maschio o femmina... Red devil 666

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Red_devil_666

p.s. non ho ancora capito se 6 maschio o femmina... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.94.208.44 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Catholic Church of Wikipedia

Since you are listed as a Roman Catholic, I urge you to vote to delete this offensive article: User:Sam Korn/Catholic Church of Wikipedia, which is a parody of Catholicism, at this page: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sam Korn/Catholic Church of Wikipedia, and tell other people to do the same. --Shanedidona 01:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you help

I would appreciate help with watching LIFE (Charity) and Central Catholic Library both of which I feel have merit and are only being classified unencyclopedic because the "editor" has a grudge against me. Chooserr

(Reply on Chooserr's talk page.) --Army1987 15:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

CAoW

Since you are listed as a Roman Catholic, I figured I'd send you this. Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia has been nominated for Deletion. Please vote and/or tell other people to vote to keep this organization on wikipedia. --Shanedidona 01:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Lonely Day

I changed "Lonely Day" into a song stub because it doesn't fit into the "metal category", even though it's by System of a Down. It's more of a soft-rock with a hard rock twist to it, not metal. --WereWolf Febuary 1, 2006 3:30 P.M. Mountain Time. (UTC)

Lonely Day

I guess wew can do that . . .and how did you know it was me that changed thee metal-song-stub?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WereWolf (talk • contribs) 18:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi there...

I came across your page on Category:teenage wiipedians.... and i am impressed by the stuff on your user page... i think its one of the best pages i have ever seen..... i saw your interest on music and thought maybe you'd like the song by my band "Cosa Nostra" ......heres the link to the song....

If you wanna Download the song: [[2]]

Or If you wanna Stream it:

[[3]]

Tell us what you think on my talk page.....

Thanks a lot..

Jayant, 17 Years, India|(My Talk) 18:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you....

Hii....

Thanks a lot for your comments.....we are still looking for a drummer......and it might some more time before we find one.... coz drummers are hard to find in India....

Thanks a lot again.....

Jayant, 17 Years, India|(My Talk) 09:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Dude!

You have played the guitar intro of Toxicity on a church organ? Awesome! (Sorry, I saw it on the two-millionth article pool and thought that was fantastic. Sadly, I haven't done it myself. :D) -- Sarsaparilla39 10:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not so hard. You play the C-G arpeggio with your right thumb and ring finger, then you move your hand to play the Eb-Bb part with the same fingers. For the following you use your little finger to play A's, and then middle/ring/little fingers for A/Bb/C. (At least, this is the naïve way I play it, I've never been formally taught to play piano or keyboards so I don't know what would be the most 'proper' way to do that.) --Army1987 20:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Tartini and difference tones

Greetings! I attempted to clarify the passage you mentioned; hopefully it's better now (someone else had already fixed it up a bit before I got there). Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Army1987 20:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Reminder...

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 15:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Redirection page

I saw your note that it was not wise to redirect my user page to my article page. Thanks, I've since un-redirected my user page. For the rest you recommend, please see my User page and comment there please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galidakis (talk • contribs) 23:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

you were completely right about Physical constants

and User:Kehrli's edits were both bad writing and bad physics. there are some POV disputes regarding the nature of dimensionless/dimensionful physical quantities that he is having elsewhere (that i do not wish to touch). i am not sure, but i think that he actually does not fully understand the nature of such yet is fully convinced that he understands it better than the mainstream physics understanding of the subject. please, if someone makes scientific fallacious edits that you know are wrong, don't just complain, fix them. i didn't have it on my watch page so it wasn't until yesterday that i discovered this (and fixed it). best regards. r b-j 04:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The current version of the article seems ok to me, I'm just making some minor style tweaks. However, that edit had screwed up the POV of the article that the only way I saw to fix it was to completely revert that, and I was unsure on wheter that was the right thing to do. --Army1987 09:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
it depends on you level of technical certainty or moral certainty. if you know something is wrong or someone's personal POV (rather than the POV accepted by the consensus of the experts and/or practitioners in that particular discipline), sure, revert the bastard. r b-j 02:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Army, Rbj, I do not want to appear arrogant but I think you changed back for worse the article of Physical constant. Please read Talk:Physical_constant#Removed_paragraph for a more detailed explanation. Please think about it and let me know your conclusions. Obviously this needs a deeper discussion, but I think you guys are wrong on this one. This subject, btw, has nothing to do with the m/z struggle that I was taken in somewhere else. In both cases I am fighting a wide-spread opinion that is wrong. Sorry that my edits are sometimes badly written. I am very short of time (as you are) and I only edit when I find a serious error, as I think there is in the Physical constant article. I am aware that some people try to present me as a maveric-editor. However, before you get influenced by those please make your own opinion and carefully rethink your arguments. I think both of you have the IQ to do this. Thanks, --Kehrli 10:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Main Page

You win! [4] Mathmo 18:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Did I? Coooool...
P.S.: Too much alcohol is bad for you. :-) --Army1987 09:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
lol, what makes you think I've been drinking?! Mathmo Talk 19:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a guess... --Army1987 20:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Untagged image

An image you uploaded, Image:Rieti.jpg, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 13:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Environmental Protection Userbox

Hi Army1987, Thanks for using the userbox that I created (the one about supporting environmental protection). I'm glad that there're people in the world who care about the environment just as much as I do. Please encourage your friends to put up this userbox if they have accounts in Wikipedia. Currently I am doing double major (Biology and Environment Science) at University of Toronto. If you have any questions about environmental protection, please don't hesitate to contact me by wiki.
OhanaUnited 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Il_sogno_del_menestrello.ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:Il_sogno_del_menestrello.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 14:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Hope this suffices. --Army1987 10:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed that the song is 3 min 57 s, so 30 s is longer than 10%. I'm updating a shorter version. --Army1987 10:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning out the additional logarithm topics article

Hello! I noticed you were a contributor to the Additional logarithm topics article and I've posted on the talk page a suggestion that I believe would help clean up the encyclopedia. Would you mind checking it out and adding your comments or suggestions on the talk page? Thanks. Ed H | talk 02:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Kilogram’s circular definition

Copied from Talk:Kilogram
  • Army1987: Yes, you are right. The Avogadro constant (the mole) must be fixed in Kilogram, otherwise it would be a circular definition. It is now fixed. I can not tell you how many bright people (at least seemingly so) have looked at this article and overlooked that laps of logic. I see you are an Italian physics student and English is likely your second language. Your choice of vocation certainly seems to be the right one. My wife and I just visited Italy (and some of Europe) and just loved your country. Thanks for your help. Greg L (my talk) 06:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Binaural beats

Notice you have edited on talk page. At present looking for consensus there to retain beat generators in Links. Care to comment Jagra 10:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Duh (disambiguation)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Duh (disambiguation), and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.clarkandpartners.co.uk/wiki.php?title=Duh. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:ExtremeValueTheorem.png

Thank you for Image:ExtremeValueTheorem.png, but I'd argue that the way it appears in the Continuous function article it would need a lot of improvement. The function is very oscillatory, and that distracts from the point it is trying to make. It is also rather blurry, and the green and blue points are invisible in the thumbnail.

Could you regenerate the picture with a smoother function (say an absolute value or a function with an angle but smooth otherwise) and make the curves thicker and green/blue points more visible? Wonder what you think. Thanks. You can reply here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the points are too small, and the lines could be thicker. I'll fix that. As for smoothness, IMO in example images one should use the a typical instance of a concept, rather than a particularly well-behaved one, for example an example image of a triangle had better not depict an isosceles triangle, or an example image of an angle shouldn't depict a right angle. And most continuous functions are nowhere differentiable. I agree that as it stands that makes the image quite ugly, but maybe using thicker lines will mitigate that issue. --Army1987 (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, so I guess we disagree here. I'd argue that most functions people see are smooth or piecewise smooth. A piecewise smooth (with a kink and an angle say) function would look better to me. The highly oscillatory function will strike people as alien, such a diagram would be more appropriate in illustrating a nowhere differentiable function rather than a maximum/minimum concept. But OK, it is your image. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that usually, in mathematics, continuous functions are exemplified by smooth or piecewise smooth functions. That's because the most used functions are analytic functions with closed-form formulas. But most "real-world" (i.e. stochastic) functions aren't smooth. A diagram of stock market prices, a seismograph, or the waveform of brown noise (or indeed of any audio sample more complicated than the output of a tuning fork or of a synthesizer) will be very spiky, so that graph might not be as "alien" as you think. Of course, that image is going to be used in math articles, so that a more regular function would look more familiar, but I think using an example of the most general kind which still satisfies the definition of "continuous" isn't such a bad idea. --Army1987 (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Filed in the "Hacker" article

In accordance with clause (4) of the Arbitration Filing Procedure, you are hereby being notified that you have been mentioned as a contributing party to the article and you can make a statement.

You can find the claim, and make your statement here.

I am required to tell you this information I am the filing party for the arbitration claim.

Andrew81446 (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)