- 1 Conrad Black WP:ITN/Candidates
- 2 User page deleted.
- 3 Barnstar
- 4 Rome:Total war
- 5 Image:Desktopbg.png
- 6 Smile
- 7 Great questions
- 8 gondolas
- 9 Medical advice
- 10 Your question about F1 gear ratios
- 11 Merry Christmas!
- 12 File:Nikonf4.jpg
- 13 Possibly unfree File:Nikonf4.jpg
- 14 Safe keylogger
- 15 File copyright problem with File:UClubNYCForks.jpg
- 16 Taken (film)
- 17 Nomination of Math 55 for deletion
- 18 Wikipedia Day Melbourne Meetup
- 19 February Melbourne Meetup
- 20 TB
- 21 Meetup invitation: Melbourne 26
- 22 At the Reference desk / Miscellaneous . . .
Conrad Black WP:ITN/Candidates
Hi, thanks for your suggestion. I'm unsure if it's suitable for the In The News(ITN) section however. You may not be aware that ITN isn't actually a news service as such. It's actual purpose is to highlight encyclopedia articles in Wikipedia that have been updated with current information that is currently in the International Media's attention. (mouthful isn't it?) As such there are several criteria (listed at the top of the page) that govern whether an item is included or not.
Also, just to annoy everyone, unlike talk pages the newest candidates are listed at the top. I've moved your suggestion to the top of the list so people see it. See how it goes. --Monotonehell 19:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
User page deleted.
Hello. I have deleted your user page, as it appears that you copied it almost word for word from the user page of administrator User:Harro5. While copying the layout of a page is perfectly accessible, it is not allowable to appropriate content, content which results in a misrepresentation of your experience and editing history. Please do not do that again. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 22:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Where does it say that?Acceptable 16:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I have read the Wikipedia guidelines of a userpage and it does not cover what you stated. However, I have removed much of the questionable content and personalized the content to better suit myself. Acceptable 18:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Really? You traveled to the exact same places for the exact same amount of time? And You speak the same languages with the same degree of proficiency? --YbborTalk 22:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, fixed. Acceptable 04:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
|The Surreal Barnstar|
|I've decided to give you this barnie for your hilarious questions on the reference desk about spartan hoplites. By the way, do you play Rome:Total war - Pheonix 23:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)|
I thought so. Most other people would just refer to preatorian cohorts, along with everything else, as "Roman soldiers"
Hi Acceptable. You uploaded this image claiming it was your own work, and you released it under GFDL. However, the image appears to be from http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r217/jamesino1/07marchla9.png. The image has therefore been deleted. Please do not upload images claiming they are your own work again. Neil ム 09:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Shmooshkums 01:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Every time I see you asking a question on the ref desk, I think you must be writing a novel of some sort. Because of the nature of the questions, I would like to ask that when/if you do finish the novel, you let me know because I definitely want a copy. The leg-chopping-off part alone will be worth the price, I think... :) Faithfully, Deltopia 13:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your question on the Ref Desk here, the (illegal) unlicensed practice of medicine is only one of many reasons why offering medical advice (as defined in Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines/Medical advice) is forbidden—most editors would even argue that it's far from the most important. First and foremost of our reasons is that we simply don't want to see anyone get hurt, whether by bad advice, or by good advice that just happened to turn out badly. We also want to protect Wikipedia's reputation (we've seen how single individual's bad acts can tarnish the entire project) and protect everyone involved from lawsuits (groundless or otherwise). There's a lighthearted, informal, but fairly extensive explanation of all of these at User:TenOfAllTrades/Why not?. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Your question about F1 gear ratios
Regarding your question at the reference desk about F1 car gearing, here's my calculated, generic gear ratio for top gear at Monza, and how I derived it.
First off, based on past broadcasts showing telemetry data, the fastest speed that an F1 car reaches during the season (and thus the tallest gearing) is found at Monza, where speeds peak at approximately 340 kilometers per hour. Also, according to the FIA Technical Regulations (available at F1's official site), two other critical figures are set by the rules--the engine rev limiter is set to 19,000 revolutions per minute, and the diameter of the tyres is set to 660 millimeters.
The basic formula is that you determine the gear ratio by dividing the engine speed by the rotational speed of the tyres. We know what the engine speed at top speed is, 19,000 rpm, but to finish this equation, we need to find the tyre speed.
Assuming that there is no wheelspin involved, every time the tyres make one complete rotation, the car will travel forward the same distance as the circumference of the tyres. Thus, we can figure out the rotational speed of the tyres by dividing the car's speed by the tyres' circumference.
Step one, therefore, is to convert the car speed to use the same units as our known figures--in this case, from kilometers per hour to millimeters per minute. 340 km/h * 1000 m/km * 1000 mm/m / 60 min/hr == 5,666,666.67 mm/min
Next, we calculate the tyre circumference using basic geometry--circumference equals pi times diameter. 660 mm * pi == 2073.45 mm
Now, we use these figures to calculate the rotational speed of the tyres. 5,666,666.67 mm/min / 2073.45 mm/rev == 2732.96 rev/min. Call it 2733 rpm, given the approximations already involved.
One step remains--finding the gear reduction. Divide the engine speed by the tyre speed, all the units cancel out, and you're left with the gear ratio. 5,666,666.67 rpm / 2733 rpm == 6.952, so the total gear ratio on a modern F1 car at Monza, in top gear, would be 6.952:1.
Note that I'm not sure whether F1 cars today use a separate differential gear, or if they use a transaxle that combines the functions of transmission and differential into a single unit; if they use a separate diff, then the ratios in the transmission itself would be much lower, as you would multiply the gear reduction of the differential gear by the ratio in the transmission to get the total ratio. However, the total ratio would remain about the same.
- Wow, that was very good. One thing that I'm not understanding is the very last portion. Since a transaxle combines the function of a transmission and differential into a single unit, is it not the same thing as having separate transmission and differential gears when calculating gear ratios from tire rotational speed? For both cases, doesn't the engine speed have to go through both the transmission and the differential gears, the only difference being the location of the two? Acceptable (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the difference there is that the transaxle uses a single gear to both perform the gear reduction and to act as the differential itself; the conventional transmission-differential arrangement has a separate set of gears in the differential, which generate a further gear reduction. Normally, in a conventional transmission-differential setup, the transmission actually uses a 1:1 gear ratio in high gear, so the total gear reduction is equal to the ratio of the differential (for street applications, typically between 3.5:1 and 4.2:1). The transaxle bypasses this step, so the gears used in it are different than in a transmission-differential configuration that has the same final drive ratios. Rdfox 76 (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I see that you uploaded File:Nikonf4.jpg, and tagged it as cc-by-sa, but mentioned that it may not be used for commercial use in its description. Not allowing commercial use means that the photo is not free enough for Wikipedia, and it actually is a different license than the one you selected. Would you like to keep the license under "cc-by-sa" and remove the "no commercial use" mention? Please reply on my talk page. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'm going to list it on PUI, just to make sure it doesn't get missed if I get busy with other things. You should reply there. I apologize for the template, but here it comes:
Possibly unfree File:Nikonf4.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nikonf4.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
- The simple answer is "because that's our policy." The policy is explained in a bit more detail at the image use policy, but basically it's because we want the image content of Wikipedia to be as unencumbered in usage restrictions as the text content. The text content does not restrict commercial use, and so an image license which only allows non-commercial use is not considered "free enough" for us to use. kmccoy (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. It's a great photo, I'm glad we could keep it. :) kmccoy (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:UClubNYCForks.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:UClubNYCForks.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.
Re this film, is it any good? 'Grossed' back 11 x its' production costs, Directed by Luc Besson (the The Fifth Element & Léon (film)) But "mixed reviews", what did you think? --220.101 talk\Contribs 07:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm a big fan of action movies and I really enjoyed this one. Lots of cinematic combat, but the ending was a bit abrupt. Overall, I think it is worth watching. Acceptable (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Math 55 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sandman888 (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia Day Melbourne Meetup
Hi there. Just inviting youmto the Melbourne meetup this Sunday at 11am, to celebrate our 11th anniversary. Details on that page. Hope to see you there! SteveBot (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC) (on behalf of Steven Zhang)
February Melbourne Meetup
Hi All. Just letting you know that we have another meetup planned for Melbourne, on Sunday, 26th February at 11am. More details can be found at the meetup page. Pizza will be provided. Look forward to seeing all of you there :-) SteveBot (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Meetup invitation: Melbourne 26
Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup next Sunday (6 January). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 26. Hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 04:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)