User talk:Mmitchell10

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

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Mmitchell10, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Ocean acidification. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! —Cupco 13:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Mmitchell10, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Mmitchell10! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Leading-order, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Cerebellum (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I moved the new article to Leading-order term, because Wikipedia policy discourages article titles from being adjectives or adjective phrases. Links to leading-order or leading order will automatically forward the reader to the new article location.--Srleffler (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, no problem, thanks for letting me know Mmitchell10 (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Question[edit]

I see that you gave no reason for this edit. Care to fill me in? JamesBWatson (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Maths is classified as a scientific field. Universities tend to place maths within their science faculties. Of course, it's also much more than merely science, but the page on complex numbers is not the place for making this point. Also, why leave economics in the list? Also, when this change has been made before on this very page, other editors have undone the edit, eg on 19 May. Feel free to come back at me... Mmitchell10 (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't see that "this change has been made before on this very page". I do see that mathematics and statistics have been removed, which is a very different matter from what I did, which was singling out mathematics for a different kind of mention. Complex numbers are a part of mathematics, and I do feel that use of such a mathematical concept in other fields is a different matter from internal use within the subject. I don't actually think that the use of the words "scientific" and "engineering" is really the point, particularly since, as you rightly point out, it is questionable whether economics falls under that description. To me, the essential point of the sentence is that complex numbers have applications in a number of real-life fields, and are not restricted to pure mathematics. Of course complex numbers appear in pure mathematics: that is almost an empty statement, whereas saying that they have applications to other fields is a significant statement.
What would you say to the following suggestion? As I said above, as I see it the essential point is that complex numbers are not just an abstract part of pure mathematics, but have applications. Removing statistics, as an earlier editor tried to do, is certainly unhelpful. I also see no reason why pure mathematics should not get a mention, though I do feel, as i said above, that it has a different status than the others. Specifying "scientific and engineering" is perhaps unhelpful, both because it might be considered debatable whether economics fits under that description, and because it is redundant: anyone looking at the list can see that it includes scientific and engineering fields. (Also, I am not sure that "many engineering fields" is true: complex numbers certainly have a good deal of use in electrical engineering, but no engineer in any other branch of engineering that I have ever asked has said that complex numbers have any use in their field. We have "electrical engineering in the list, so do we need to have "engineering" in the preamble to the list too?) I would suggest something like "As well as their use within mathematics, complex numbers have practical applications in many fields, including physics, chemistry, biology, economics, electrical engineering, and statistics." Any opinion? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I think I agree, and I think that's an excellent suggestion which will make the article better than it was 24 hrs ago. Please go ahead and make that change, thanks for taking the time over this. Mmitchell10 (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hello ! I have red about "Goal average" now. Preaviously I just noticed the bold line. "Goal Average" immediately suggested to me avergage number of goals scored per game of some kind, as I wrote, I didn't study the full text. If You are quite sure that Goal ratio and Goal average is the the same, then my question is - is "Goal average" well-known and the commonly used word in Britain (or was when it was in use, rather)? I'm not native in English. What now ?, to do with the articles ? Goal average isnt the same as goal difference. And I just wrote a Goal ratio article today. (not easy to cope that average could mean ratio, if You see my point.) Could we possible 1. re-name "Goal ratio" article to "Goal average" and 2. make a link from the Goal difference article to the new "Goal average" article. And 3. shorten down the part of goal average in "goal difference article" a tiny bit ? I used a pedagogical example of the difference (atleast I think so). We could also perhaps merge the goal difference article a bit. But since they are not the same I would prefer two separate articles linking each other. Boeing720 (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your message. Yes, goal ratio and goal average are the same thing. I agree that "Goal average" could be quite a misleading name, and "ratio" would probably have been better, but unfortunately Average seems to be what they called it in England right from the start in the 1888 season, and also what they called it in the World Cups, eg. 1962. I've included "or goal ratio" on the Goal Difference page which should help. I was going to agree re-naming your Goal ratio article to Goal average, but I see someone else has deleted what you wrote and instead put in a re-direct to the Goal difference page. I think it's not clear whether Goal average should have its own article − it is a different concept to Goal difference, but one was brought in directly to replace the other, so it's good to have both together, and anyway there's not a great deal to say about either, so it would be two quite short articles. I think the historical use section you started would be very useful to have, so I would suggest you include it somewhere on the Goal Difference page, and then in the future people can see how large that section becomes and decide if Goal Average needs its own page. Mmitchell10 (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Yes as two separated articles atleast the leads wuld be rather short, I have to agree. But here is an example of how seaprated articles could be helpful. And this example is true. "In the Swedish Allsvenskan, Landskrona BoIS lost the Big silver (2nd) to their worst rivals Helsingborg IF by a less goal average of 0.005, in the 1937/38 season. If goal difference had been the tiebreaker in those days, Landskrona would have became runners up instead" It's my team's (Landskrona BoIS) best achievement ever, by the way. But I suppose a link to goal average may be called for also elsewhere.

Boeing720 (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

If you think a separate article would be best then go for it. I think I would probably agree. I suggest you do it by editing this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goal_average&redirect=no , and replacing the re-direct on that page with your article. If you want to include examples like the one you mention, are you able to link to a wikipedia page with the league table, or if not then reference an external webpage with the league table? Mmitchell10 (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Spanish Grand Prix, 2014.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Spanish Grand Prix, 2014.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 06:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)