User talk:Bkell

Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to leave me messages here.

Guidelines:

• If I have left a message on your talk page, please reply on your talk page. I will be watching it, generally for at least a week. This keeps the conversation in one place. If you would like, you can use the {{Talkback}} template to notify me here that you have replied on your talk page; simply paste {{Talkback|your username}} at the bottom of this page.
• Please start a new section if you are beginning a conversation here. If you are continuing an existing conversation, please edit the appropriate section.
• Please sign your message with four tildes: ~~~~.

Question at

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_September_2#File:Into_The_Vietnamese_Kitchen_p10.jpg .Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I've replied there. —Bkell (talk) 03:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there a tool for that?

This was very helpful, and I wonder how you figured it out. I've done this by looking at the "prev" diffs that pop up on mouseover in the page history, or use the radio buttons to do diffs for blocks of time to narrow it down, but I can imagine a tool might exist to make this easier - that attempts to determine the diff and editor associated with content on the page. Do you use such a tool? -- Scray (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I wish I knew of such a tool. I just opened the history of the page and manually did a binary search on the previous versions, seeking the edit at which the word "soundiferancic" first appeared. It's like the game where someone thinks of a number and you try to guess it, and after each of your guesses you are told "too high" or "too low." So, for example, I looked at the last edit from 2011, which did not contain the word, so I knew it had been inserted this year; then I looked at the first edit from May; then I looked at an edit from 14 June; and so on.
If you're tracking down vandalism in this way, it helps to realize that you can ignore edits which were immediately reverted, because they don't change anything. Also, a lot of vandalism is done by anonymous editors, so when you get close you can start focusing on the anonymous edits. Even so, it's a bit of a tedious process. —Bkell (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, seems we approach this in just the same (tedious) way - the binary search method is the right term for what I was referring to when I mentioned use of the radio buttons. Years ago I saw editors refer to a (defunct) tool called "who wrote that" or somesuch. Certainly, such a tool could not be perfect, but in many cases it should be tractable. Once I find that person, searching their contributions around the same time sometimes yields strange vandalism sprees. -- Scray (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Just ran across the blamer tool, which seems like it could be quite useful. Cheers! -- Scray (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Johnny Torrio Image

If the image I uploaded has to be deleted, then so be it. I will not lodge any protests. Thanks for letting me know. And003 (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Harmonic Maths

I forwarded the permission from the author. Pkeets (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I've added {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page. —Bkell (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Pegrema photo

Hi Bkell! You have left me a message at my Talk page stating that the file [File:Karelija Pegrema.jpg] I uploaded a while ago lacks a copyright verification. Unfortunately it looks like since the file was uploaded, the site where I took it from (http://www.nordfoto.ru/) ceased to exist. Therefore, I'm not sure how to verify the license tag. Thank you. Khakhalin (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, I saw that too. I checked the Internet Archive at http://www.archive.org/ before I left the message on your talk page. I found an archived copy of their photo gallery of Medvezhyegorsky District, Медвежьегорский район, but unfortunately there is no archived copy of the subgallery for Pegrema (Деревня Пегрема) where I imagine you found the photo you uploaded as File:Karelija Pegrema.jpg. In any case, at the bottom of the galleries that are archived, there is a copyright notice that says "Copyright © 2002, Валерий Гуляев", but I do not see any mention of the GFDL. So I don't see any evidence to support the {{GFDL}} tag that is currently on the File:Karelija Pegrema.jpg file description page. —Bkell (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point on the "speech became famous" comment. I was mostly basing it on the Atlantic comment "Here's the text of his speech, made newly famous during the Super Bowl". Is there a way you think that information can be incorporated? Ryan Vesey 13:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The statement that the speech is now famous is an opinion at this point, not a fact. I suppose you could say something like, "The speech has been described as 'newly famous,'" with a reference to the Atlantic, which is a verifiable fact; but that statement doesn't really convey any meaningful data (and how does the Atlantic know it's now famous, anyway, and not just a flash in the pan?). I think you should leave this claim out of the article. See Wikipedia:Let the dust settle#Notability requires more than 15 minutes of fame. The word "famous" is an example of a class of words commonly called "peacock terms" on Wikipedia; such words "make unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance" and should be avoided. See also WP:ASF. —Bkell (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Good call

... this :-) -- Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Windows Setup.jpg

Hi.

I hope I am not bothering you, but I thought it is important to drop you a note about your edit in File:Windows Setup.jpg. I think it is good thing that the image isn't PNG. JPEG screenshots are smaller and the lost fidelity (due to artifacts) is actually a plus for WP:NFCC#3b compliance.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. It is not generally true that JPEG screenshots have a smaller file size; PNG files are usually smaller for images that have large blocks of solid colors, which includes most screenshots of computer programs. However, a JPEG might be smaller in this case because of the gradients around the edges.
I do not interpret WP:NFCC#3b as promoting a loss of fidelity in images via means such as blurring, garbling, or introducing compression artifacts. Instead, I think it refers to using low-resolution images and low-fidelity sound samples. I have always thought that, within the low-resolution requirement for images, we should have the most accurate representation of the image that we can get. —Bkell (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello again. I see that I may have been wrong about my interpretation of "fidelity". I now remember that "fidelity" is used as a counterpart of "resolution" in audio, since "resolution" has its own meaning in that domain. (My way of thinking might have been in part influenced by FleetCommand's practice of reducing image color depth and putting distinction between "resolution" and "dimension".) Since you have a valid counterargument, I cede my position. But would you say that in general, I should avoid JPEG screenshots in favor PNG whenever possible? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, it depends on the content of the screenshot. If it's a screenshot of a video game, for example, so that the image is essentially photographic in its nature, then a JPEG might be best; the JPEG format was designed to work well with photographs. On the other hand, if it's a screenshot of a typical window with text, large areas of flat color, and sharp edges, then a PNG is usually a better choice than a JPEG. —Bkell (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Mathematical coincidence & Almost integer

removed a bunch of random stuff that had neither references nor connections to things in other Wikipedia articles

Well... I'm glad you did. It feels really refreshing and motivating to have someone pissing all over your work...

Anyway... you said that the "random stuff" in question had "no connections to things in other Wikipedia articles": this isn't exactly true: a few of the approximations -or coincidences- that you chose to remove were based on (or related to) other similar or equivalent relations from the related article almost integer. These are:

• ${\displaystyle 2\pi +e\approx 9}$
• ${\displaystyle \pi ^{2}-{\frac {e}{\pi }}\approx 9}$
• ${\displaystyle \pi ^{9}-e^{8}-\pi \approx 26825}$${\displaystyle e\approx \pi {\sqrt[{8}]{\pi \over 10}}}$
• ${\displaystyle 2\ \ln ^{3}\pi \approx 3}$${\displaystyle \pi \approx e^{\sqrt[{3}]{3 \over 2}}}$

Also, the fact -or coincidence- that the value of the Euler-Mascheroni constant ${\displaystyle \gamma }$ is so close to the value of ${\displaystyle 1 \over {\sqrt {3}}}$ is explained by applying the Gaussian quadrature for 2 points to the integral definition of the constant. So perhaps next time it would be better to check your facts first before taking such rash and swift decisions. And here's another outrageous idea: how about actually trying to contribute yourself with links, references, and connections, instead of simply hacking away the information ? P.S.: I've sometimes felt a bit guilty for not contributing (financially) to Wikipedia... thanks for clearing my conscience once and for all. — 79.113.230.39 (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry I upset you. What I am trying to avoid is an article that is just a miscellaneous collection of facts that editors happen to discover and find interesting. The mathematical coincidence article was really bad about four years ago—hardly any of the things listed in the article had references to justify their inclusion in the article as notable coincidences that have been observed and covered by reliable sources outside Wikipedia. Since then it has gotten a lot better, but we need to make sure we include references to reliable sources to demonstrate that the facts in the article are not original research.
Frankly, the almost integer article is awful. It's just a huge unreadable mess of random trivia, with no citations to outside references that show that the facts are anything other than interesting discoveries made by Wikipedia editors. That is not what a good Wikipedia article should be. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The mathematical coincidence article looked a lot like that in 2009, but it has improved a lot. How did that improvement come about? Part of the improvement was made by finding references for various claims, and part of the improvement was made by deleting claims for which no meaningful references could be found.
You seem to believe that deletion is not contribution. I respectfully disagree. Wikipedia articles need a certain amount of pruning as they develop.
Now, let's see if we can come to a satisfactory solution about the items I removed from the mathematical coincidence article earlier. Can you find reliable sources that discuss those particular coincidences? If so, I fully support their inclusion in the article, with references to those sources. —Bkell (talk) 06:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
The properties of ${\displaystyle \phi }$, Heegner numbers, and Ramanujan's constant are neither random, nor the discoveries of Wikipedia editors. There is a mathematical reason or explanation for them. The property of Gelfond's constant is random, however, it is not the the discovery of Wikipedia editors. And the square root of 10 and cube root of 31 have been historic approximations for ${\displaystyle \pi }$, albeit perhaps less famous than others. Then again, these entries are not the ones you've deleted, so perhaps you already knew all this. And I never said that deleting meaningless junk is not an acceptable way of contributing to Wikipedia... I just thought that these particular entries did not necessarily belong into that category. — 79.113.196.61 (talk) 07:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Let's suppose, just for the sake of discussion, that I don't believe you when you claim that the properties of these various numbers are not the discoveries of Wikipedia editors. Can you prove to me, by providing references to external sources, that these things have been discussed in a scholarly context outside of Wikipedia? —Bkell (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Theoretically, yes. Practically, no. I personally don't have the (re)sources to do that. Not unless one considers my memory a (re)source. :-) — 79.113.227.82 (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Proportions question on math ref desk

Thank you so much for a perfect answer to my question about why the pencil measure trick works when setting up proportions. Manytexts (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! —Bkell (talk) 08:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Ping....

Hi Bkell, I left you a response here. All the best -- 21:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

log n and lg n are not same thing

I think lg n and log n are not same thing. For the former base is 2 but for the later base is 10. This is in context of Binary Search Tree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.140.45 (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

True, but O(log n) and O(lg n) are the same thing, because log n and lg n differ by only a constant factor (by the change-of-base formula for logarithms). —Bkell (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, 199, beware of assuming that unadorned "log" always means base 10. In mathematical writing, it will ordinarily mean the natural log (base e). Yes, "ln" exists, but not everyone uses it. --Trovatore (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You may be interested in my proposal over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. —Designate (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

AFT5 re-enabled

Hey Bkell :). Just a note that the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5 has now been re-enabled. Let us know on the talkpage if you spot any bugs. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Space Shuttle landing sites

Category:Space Shuttle landing sites, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, can you make a comment about my new project Encyclopine.org

hi, Hi, can you make a comment about my new project Encyclopine.org?

Invitation

 Hello! I'm Jacqueline Yeung, currently a Carnegie Mellon Researcher at the Human Computer Interaction Institute. The Project Pittsburgh page referred us to you as a Pittsburgh Wikipedian. We'd would like to invite you to our HCI lab at CMU to gather and meet other fellow Pittsburgh Wikipedians. I'm so excited to meet you and learn about your experiences with Wikipedia. Please comment at Pittsburgh MeetUP 2015 . Regards JMyraYeung (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC) (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) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Puf2a

Template:Puf2a has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magog the Ogre (t c) 14:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

 Hello, Bkell. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy. Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas. In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions: Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort. A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard. Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)