User talk:Delaszk/archive1

Uranus and Neptune
You attempts to impove these articles are much appreciated. However I want to make several observations:


 * 1) The language of a Featured article must be brilliant and of a professional standard. See Featured_article_criteria 1(a). When you write "20% of the radius is composed of hydrogen and helium" you violate it, because radius can not be composed of anything&mdash;it is only a distance between the center and surface.


 * 2) When you add a reference to article, make sure that its style is the same as the style of other refs in the article (see 2(c)of FA Criteria). In the Uranus and Neptune articles author's first names are written after their family name. In your ref they are written in reverse order.


 * 3) You are supposed to provide accurate information about the source. In the case of "Encyclopedia of the Solar System" you should have used a different template (cite encyclopedia), because this book is a compilation where each chapter is written by different scientists. Lucy-Ann McFadden and others are only editors.


 * 4) The lead of the article is a summary of the article (see 2(a) of FA Criteria). It should not be crammed with accessive details like "the outer 20% of the radius".


 * 5) I also want to say that those numbers are not so certain as you obviously think. The outer gaseous envelop can be as thick as 30% of the radius of the planet (Uranus and Neptune) or as thin as 15%. The known gravitational moments don't put sufficiantly strong constrains on interior models to isolate unique one (see Podolak et al, 1995, 2000 in the Uranus article). The outer envelop may be or may not be separated from the mantle by a density discontinuity, it is simply not known with certanty. This is the main reason, why the section about interior structure of Uranus is written much more cautiously. Interior is also composed not only from ice but includes rocks too.


 * 6) What is known with reasonable certanty is the composition of atmospheres. THis was main reason for them mentioned in the lead.

Ruslik (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the article on smoothed analysis. I personally find it a fascinating topic whose implications I'd like to understand better. I was wondering whether you're familiar with WikiProject Mathematics which is just a bunch of editors (including myself) that like to work on the maths articles here. The associated talk page on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics is a good place for questions which require some mathematical knowledge. You should also feel free to ask me personally, but I can't make any promises about my knowledge! Anyway, I look forward to seeing more of your contributions. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Initial context setting
Hello. Please note this edit and its edit summary. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for edit summary
Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Solar System
I noticed your edit, and would like your contribution to the talk page on Talk:Solar_System. -HarryAlffa (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Infinite iterations
Hi! I made a partial revert of an edit you made to iterated binary operation, since I didn't think it to be completely correct; cf. the article discussion. Feel free to revert, if you wish to!-JoergenB (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Optimization
I've restored Category:Optimization and made it a parent category of Category:Mathematical optimization per your request. I'm not sure why you couldn't re-create it as the deletion did not block this process. I'm unsure what you have in mind for the category, i.e., what other subcategories or articles it will have or what its parents will be—I'll leave that up to you to take care of. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've now added some other categories to it. I couldn't create it because every time I tried to save the page it just took me back to the notice saying you are recreating a deleted page.Delaszk (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Mathmo AfD
Would appreciate your input at Deletion_review as it's been subject to a non-Admin closure. The non-admin in question seems to have totally ignored the fact that it's a DictDef. Mrh30 (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

New Scientist article
I can't read it without a subscription. Is this "halo" the same as the Oort cloud?  Serendi pod ous  20:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Clarified. :-)  Serendi pod ous  09:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't delete context you disagree with
Dear Delaszk, please don't delete context you don't understand or disagree with. Imaging somebody does it with your writings. Wikipedia is about cooperation and compromising, not about confrontation. If you have a different opinion about some equation, write it down. You made some irrelevant (in my opinion) changes to the article, but I did not delete them although I believe they are plainly... irrelevant, to say the least. Please, try to cooperate, will you? Bakken (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In reply to your complaints:
 * "Imaging somebody does it with your writings.". YOU DID JUST THAT, you deleted my writings and replaced them with yours and then accused me of vandalism when I reverted your edit.


 * "but I did not delete them" . YES YOU DID. I wrote stuff about nonzero v and you deleted it and replace it with your writings.


 * "Wikipedia is about ... compromising". I don't see you compromising. And anyway there is no point in compromising over the issue of dividing by zero. It is plain wrong.


 * "Please, try to cooperate, will you?". Why don't you cooperate ? If you want to rewrite the whole article using limits then do so, but don't say that dividing by zero is valid. Delaszk (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * All right, all right, just calm down. If there is a phrase "dividing by zero is valid" in the article I agree to delete it. And your phrase "This is valid for nonzero v..." is still there in the article -- nobody deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakken (talk • contribs) 18:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"nobody deleted it". Yes you did. I wrote "Since this holds for any nonzero $$v$$" see this diff: and then you deleted it and put "Since this holds for any $$v$$" see this diff: Delaszk (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

de Sitter relativity nominated for deletion
I've nominated de Sitter relativity for deletion; the discussion page is here. -- BenRG (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please sign your messages
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! Stifle (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Giuseppe Arcidiacono
A tag has been placed on Giuseppe Arcidiacono requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  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. Neuro √ Logic 22:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * of course I declined the speedy, but you will need to say a little more. What was his position at the university? what did he publish? How much are they cited? Please see WP:PROF and WT:PROF for the relevant criteria. I'd advise you to add this very quickly, before it gets nominated for regular deletion.DGG (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

De Sitter Relativity
I saved the article on De Sitter Relativity in my user space. If it gets deleted, it can probably be recreated.Likebox (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)