User talk:Reddwarf2956

Neutron star

Left you a reply here. Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 01:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. 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 ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ratio of circumfrence to radius article

Hi, is it ok if I borrow shamelessly from your article with the above title in your userspace? I am trying to build a "bomb-proof" article on tau that will survive even the most pi-ous wikipedian's efforts. You also have a lot in that article that would be extremely time-consuming to duplicate. Thanks in advance, Tazerdadog (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was trying to do the same. In fact, most of what is wrote is by others. How about just editing my page at User:Reddwarf2956/Ratio_of_circumference_to_radius? Note, I know that they will do something if it has anything with tau in the main part, so take a look at it and talk with me as to what is best there. John W. Nicholson (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying top make the article about Tau, with tau as the main subject, and source it so well that they really can't complain. I am trying very hard to keep it WP:NPOV, and I think that a neutral and inbiased treatment will make it through if wikipedians follow the fringe theory policy. (the reliable sources are there.) I will take a look, but you seem to be dancing around tau, while I consider it the "accepted " term for C/r (other than 2 pi) Tazerdadog (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see what you are doing. But, with what you are stating I am unsure if you will get far. Take a look at they did before in both Talk:Pi and Talk:Tau_(2π) archives. See how they cut tau down? John W. Nicholson (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did look, and decided to start after I had read both talk pages. I will crawl around the archives for a while. I am planning on presenting tau as a notable fringe theory, similar to the face on mars. I believe that this is the due weight.Tazerdadog (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see what you are doing. So, please keep me informed.

I am starting to think both methods at the same time might be better still, but I am unsure about how to make it come out OK. For example, I do not know if both can be in one page or if they need to be placed in two. With mine the mathematics is good. It just needs references which is any good textbook. The good thing about this direction they are forced to talk out of both sides of there mouth. They can not say that it is not fringe and is fact nor can they say it is not used. However this might cause some places to end having a link for tau. And cause it to have links to things like Pseudoscience attached. Which I do NOT like seeing happening. If the page has a focus on the fact that pi, while factual, does not have any roots (except historical roots) to the math, there might be a way to make the page legit even later. It would at least force the pi page to add a section on the what makes it legit which in turn would force tau out of Tau_(2π)#In_popular_culture. At the same time, it does not need to attack pi for WP:NPOV reasons. So yes, I really would like to see what you write up. John W. Nicholson (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paradigm_shift? John W. Nicholson (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article (in its current pathetic form) is here. I am debating whether to make it a stub or to aim for a full DYK. In either case, I am giong torun it through an experienced wikipedian before it goes live. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article to here Please tell me if you have any suggestions and/or contributions. Help, especially with the history response, and In popular culture sections, would be greatly appreciated Tazerdadog (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Circle-withsegments-notext.svg

Hi. As noted in the description, there already is a labeled version: Image:CIRCLE_1.svg... I had made the colour-coded image to be used in non-English wikipedias, and especially on the Radius and Diameter articles, where it wouldn't be necessary to identify ALL the elements in the picture. But i think i can manage to merge both and have a labeled and colour-coded image at File:Circle-withsegments.svg if you think it's really needed... -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I like the idea of removing the text for non-English Wikipedias. Heck, there are differences in the spelling between British and American English of these labels. Which allows for both spellings to be used. But, I also realize that there are people who might have issues with the colors. So, I figure the compromise is to redraw it with a single letter coding so that the person editing can place the label with it. Just like what they would have to do with the colors. I think keeping the color coding and adding the letters are the best way. I think it is hard to describe circle or its parts without describing the four things in the drawing. Just take a look at them now: circle, circumference, center radius and diameter. John W. Nicholson (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i wasn't aware you answered here. :"> Okay, i get your point, and am willing to make the colour-and-letter-coded version, but there's only one small issue: I intend to make a first-letter abbreviation (which should actually work in many Latin-based languages) but have no idea how to differentiate between the Center and Circumference... What would you suggest? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS Just though i can use "O" for center... Is that okay with you?

O for circle origin sounds good. John W. Nicholson (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: i've completed the edits and uploaded the file at the initially-suggested location. Does it look okay? :) -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks great. That can be used on many pages. But not the link to it:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3ACircle-withsegments.svg

For some reason many of the links related to it are connected to google's doc viewer. John W. Nicholson (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's happening there, but i think it must be caused by your own environment. I have no problem with any link, and i don't think there's any reason to "connect" any wikipedia/wikimedia content with google docs... -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I now think you are correct, it is on my end. I need to disconnect the document viewer that I connected. Not sure how. Anyways I will have to use the svg image soon. John W. Nicholson (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or this

www.quickmeme.com/meme/3t4g8v --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And as long as I'm being silly. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing warning

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large.

The particular post I was concerned about is here. Please refrain from biased notifications. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tau at Queen Mary University of London

I'm told they're also teaching tau at Queen Mary University of London, where Robin Whitty is from. I find it in some of the POM links on his university web page (www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~whitty/). You can do a google search using "site:webspace.qmul.ac.uk/rwwhitty τ" for direct links to some of the pages. Sometime in the future, I might investigate it further, including contacting Whitty to find out how many instructors/courses are teaching tau there. But right now, I'm pretty frustrated with these guys and don't think anything will convince them, so I'm not inclined to waste more time on it now. I thought I should let you and Tazerdadog know about the lead, though, in case you want to investigate it sooner. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I'm also pretty frustrated with these guys. But, then I realize that this is the game that they are playing, waiting until we give up before calling it a win for themselves. It is clear that they are playing a game, but I have no evidence of it other than the circumstantial. And Tazerdadog's 10 random picks is one of the big markers that it is rigged. It kind of is like Benford's Law is used for finding fraud. John W. Nicholson (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty cool. I'd never heard of it before. Anyway, I'm not throwing in the towel, just recalibrating exactly how much time to waste sparring with these guys. If I thought there was a better chance of convincing them, I'd allocate more time to it. But I've always got at least some time I don't mind spending on beating them over the heads. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it cool, and I learned about Benford's Law by Numberphile. You know, one of the links we can not use because it is not notable to there standards. John W. Nicholson (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Tazerdadog/Tau_(Proposed_mathematical_constant)#Dr._James_Grime_endorses_tau

This page is for discussing whether and how to write a certain article. Personal comments about other editors such as Just do not like writing or editing, but love to comment on others writing? [1] are not appropriate. Deltahedron (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job and chin up

John, I just posted a message on Tazerdadog's talk page, since he was the leader of the effort this time around. But what I wrote there applies to you too. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Tau

You appear to be edit warring for a NAC that an uninvolved administrator overturned as being a supervote. The new close is at: User_talk:Tazerdadog/Tau_(Proposed_mathematical_constant)#RFC:Article_Notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 07:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Tau (2π), are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Sudo Ghost 01:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tau

The discussion closed about two weeks ago. If you keep badgering on about the Tau article I will ask for a topic ban from that article page. You know the consensus is against it, you know it's not going to be restored. It is purely disruptive, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings fellow radian radical

Great. Now I have to worry that the NSA may be tapping my calculator. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scary part is while while LOLing I am double blinking and thinking "Really!?" I know that my calculator is not on the internet nor phone, but that does not stop them. I remember in the UK they have truck to check to see if you are watching TV and paid your TV tax. They could have the same thing with calculators.

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:Tau (2π), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Aoidh (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Reddwarf2956. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copying from OEIS

Your addition to Twin prime has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. In particular, please note that although OEIS uses a Creative Commons license, their use of an NC (no commercial derivatives) clause makes their license incompatible with Wikipedia. So, even if the text you copied were properly attributed (which it wasn't in this case), it couldn't be used in Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not

If you are not familiar with maths, you should not edit articles on maths. I am referring to your remark about brackets. It was answered correctly by Sapphorain.