User talk:Dingo1729

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place " " on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 02:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

List of largest empires
Hello. I undid your delete of the record-breaking empires section as you claimed this had consensus on the talk page, which it did not; please take it there for further discussion if you want to challenge this. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I feel like I gave my reasons for the deletion on the talk page. Maybe I should have left them there longer for someone to reply? The single response I got was in agreement. Do you disagree that this section is inaccurate, as I outlined? If you feel that you can make it accurate, that would be an improvement, but just restoring the inaccurate information doesn't seem good. Regards, Dingo1729 (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I looked for your comment on the talk page and couldn't find it - then I saw it just now, handily supported by another editor with a history with the article. So I will have a think about it - I don't disagree in principle but didn't see a discussion there. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Discrete frequency
The problem with an article titled "Discrete frequency" is that it is like having an article Automatic soap (the stuff you get from automatic soap dispensers), so I moved it to a title that does make sense. Although I have no particular idea where one might go with this stub, this appears to me a better solution than maintaining an article on a non-existing topic. You are right, the function produced as output by a DFT also has a discrete domain; I've adjusted the article accordingly. --Lambiam 22:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, a signal does not need to be periodic to have a discrete frequency domain. Any weighted sum of sinusoidals will do; so-called discrete frequency noise sometimes manifests as a mix of almost pure whistle sounds that do not have common harmonics. --Lambiam 22:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

GCHQ biographies
Thanks very much for adding the birth information to Clifford Cocks' and Malcolm J. Williamson's biographies! Two questions: First, where did you get the information for Williamson? I'm writing a book on cryptography and I need to cite a source other than Wikipedia. Second, you filled in Cocks' place of birth as Altrincham, Chesire, but the Bristol honorary degree citation says Prestbury, Chesire. Do you know which is correct? Thanks! Doctorhook (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to Ginsberg's theorem
I tried a few things and see you have also. I can't get anchors to work with either the template or with headers. Have you had any luck?

We'll see how the RfC goes. I think we're stuck with a soft redirect and no anchoring, so I'm not sure this is a solution. Joja lozzo  01:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I didn't experiment a whole lot. In general I actually like the soft redirect telling me that I'm going to a different wiki. And that page tells me that it is Allen G., not some other Ginsberg. Yes, I'd like the anchoring to work, maybe I'll try some things, but I think that you see these are more of a problem than I do. Regards, Dingo1729 (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Dingo1729/History of commitment ordering
✅ Black Kite (t)   11:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Central tendency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mode (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Standard error, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bayesian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Think before editing.
Although in might be better described somewhere else, I brought it into context with an explanation, which for the end user isn't all that bad. If you felt that it was better explained elsewhere, add a link so the reader has both information instead of none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Rupert Swift (talk • contribs) 20:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the section and moved it. Please see my comments on the article talk page. That's probably a better place to discuss things so that other people can contribute. Dingo1729 (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Average, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Integration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake talk page
Hi,

Sorry it's impossible to have a reasonable conversation on the Sheldrake talk page because of a number of fans who take any discussion either off topic or into a silly argument. They seem to be incapable of judging his first career within the usual framework of science. The second part of his career he has spent outside of academia, while making claims about science in books targeted at a popular audience. If Sheldrake is right, as his supporters seem to believe, or even partially right, he would be the greatest scientific thinker of our time - his claims are that extraordinary. The community consensus is that WP:FRINGE should apply, and the arbcom agree, and that means we give due prominence to the criticism of him. Numerous points have been made by his critics several times, and these are summarised in the lead. I have also tried to incorporate several positive book reviews into the article. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Rupert Sheldrake. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No sense of humour, eh? Dingo1729 (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi!
Thanks for working in Limiting case (philosophy of science). --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dingo!

 * (Dear Dingo, I'm just pasting my latest answer on Limiting case (philosophy of science) here in case you don't see it. There is no need to answer unless you want to).
 * Hi again, dear Dingo. I'm afraid to say that this definition is indeed "the universally accepted one among philosophers". I want to believe that we are not "too lazy and ignorant to learn about science", as you said (hehe). But please don't be irritated, the same words can be used in different senses in different contexts, that doesn't necessarily mean that there is something fundamental that we philosophers of science are not grasping. :) --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

More

 * Hi again! Out of professional and personal interest, I'd like to ask you what is it precisely that you see so directly contradictory between the manner in which we use the phrasing and how practicing scientists use it... Thanks! --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

RM notification
Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. --В²C ☎ 17:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)