User talk:Entropeter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hi Entropeter, Thanks for your references for the use of "pi" in 1697 by David Gregory. I don't have access to the books, so would you be able to check for me that his use of pi is the ratio of circumference to radius (and not to diameter as it is now). If it is, then perhaps we should add a note to explain this to avoid confusion. Thanks. Dbfirs 07:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

... (later) ... Sorry, I've found it now, and you were correct. I've added a bit more detail. Dbfirs 08:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dbfirs, Thanks for providing these details. It would be most interesting if we could identify other mathematicians that used the constant 6.283... rather than 3.14159... I guess that Euler was such an important mathematician that everybody after him used pi to denote 3.14159..., but it would surprise me if David Gregory was the only one of that time to be interested in the circumference divided by the radius rather than the diameter. EntroPeter 11:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the text with links. If I find anyone else who used circumference to radius ratio, I'll add the details. Dbfirs 12:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Eyes and turns.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Eyes and turns.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 18:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Circle constant[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Circle constant has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The term "circle constant" does not seem notable. The article does not attempt to establish notability and in my professional experience I have never encountered the term.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ozob (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


In the article on the death of Moammar Gaddafi it was stated that might have been "sodomized". Later in the article (under Cultural Impact) the same incident is referred to as "poked or stabbed in the rear". In order to be more precise, more neutral and more consistent I changed "Sodomise" to "poked or stabbed in the rear", but you changed it back without giving any reason for that. You just mentioned that my change seemed unconstructive, but you did not change the second reference to this event. There are several reasons for my change. The notion of sodomy is unprecise. The first of all we do not know precisely what happened in the town of Sodoma. The second is that the whole concept is religiously flavored. The religious interpretation might be different in Arabic contriesand English speeking contries. The third is that what happened might not fit well into the definition of Sodomy as given in the article on Sodomy ("anal or other copulation-like act, especially between male persons or between a man and animal"). Maybe Gaddafi was already dead when this event took place and if that was the case what happened may should be described as "dishonoring a corpse". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entropeter (talkcontribs) 16:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I initially reverted the edit because - at first glance - the edit appeared to be vandalism. "Being poked in the rear" and similar sentences are often vandalism, so when seeing the change i reverted it as such. Had i taken a better look at the context of the edit it should have been clear that, in this case, the change is of course entirely fine. Add the above explanation to that, and i would say that the change is actually for the better.
In short, my mistake here, and it seems to be the second mistake on that day (At least the second someone gives me a nudge about) - I guess it would be wise for me NOT to try vandalism patrol when feeling sleepy again, since the error ratio seems to go into the unacceptable area. For what it is worth, apologies for the mistake and the incorrect warning. I reverted my edit to the article, as the "vandalism revert" rationale obviously does not apply there. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Khamis Gaddafi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sabha (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) 10:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

British vs english spellings[edit]

I appreciate your dedication to accuracy, and I'm sure you were not aware of this, but in the Libyan articles we have been mostly using british english spellings over american english, with some small exceptions. So defence and criticised are actually correct in the Saif al-Islam Gaddafi article. I have gone ahead and changed them back, but just a note for the future :) Jeancey (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Bani Walid[edit]

Hey, I appreciate your strive for accuracy, but please don't remove sourced information just because it turned out that it might not have been entirely accurate. If there is another source, replace the current one, and change the text to reflect that the rumour turned out to be incorrect, but please don't simply remove a reliably sourced statement. Thanks! Jeancey (talk) 07:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)