# User talk:Cuzkatzimhut/Archive 1

## Feynman's Last PhD student

Just a brief reprise on my adduction in [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman ], deleted for lack of "notability", at the expense of accuracy and factual completeness.

In fact, the reader ought to be able to track down some more Feynman PhD students, some retired, some vigorously active in theoretical physics, in the Standford SPIRES HEPNAMES database, [ http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hepnames/www?phdadv=Feynman,+Richard+Phillips ]. I will, of course, not spend any more time in trying to parse out the tendentious criteria for inclusion in articles, but, ideally, Wikipedia ought not to mislead by omission.

I think it is usual to just list the notable ones in the infobox, or for that matter the article. Notable in this case means our empiric "having a WP article." I don't know whether we have a limit on the number in the infobox. DGG (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, Thomas Curtright now does have a WP article.

Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this explanation. By changing "nonlinear" to "linear" I tried to follow the notion of linearity implied in Kuczma's books (and especially in Kuczma, Choczewski, Ger 1990). A more general functional equation is discussed there: f(h(x))=g(f(x)), and depending on whether g is linear or not the resulting functional equations (special cases of the above) are considered linear or nonlinear functional equations. The simplest choices for g are: 1) g(x)=s x, which results in: f(h(x))=s f(x), Schroeder's equation (linear) 2) g(x)=x+a, which results in: f(h(x))=f(x)+a, Abels's equation (linear) 3) g(x)=x^p, p>1, which results in: f(h(x))=[f(x)]^p, Boettcher's equation (nonlinear) However, considering your arguments I agree that leaving just "functional equation" (that is dropping "linear" or "nonlinear" altogether) might be the best decision.Aoryst (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

## File permission problem with File:SineIterates.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:SineIterates.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

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:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. 17:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Author emailed permissions. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Fut.Perf. 20:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Him. "θνήσκει σιγαθέν καλόν έργον". Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

## Good-faith "guarrantor"

I do understand your point. But I shouldn't name it that way. First of all, the appropriate term should be "warrant". This is a legal term I seldom use when I plead my cases. And the deal itself should be deemed as a deed. I think that there could be a redirection such as this one " ... the deal was guaranteed by Plapoutas ..." so as the reader understands the quality of the operation. Periptero (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

## Elmas Bey

I agree that Elmas may be a key figure in the whole story, although not mentioned in Kolokotronis Greek-language edition. I just point out that it should not be included in a sentece with a reference were it is not present. Periptero (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

## The lion's share

" ... There was residual bitterness over the spoils, of which 'the lion's share was seized by Kolokotronis', in a negotiated fashion ..." I understand that you want to point out the barbaric behaviour, but I think that you are focusing the event with a 21st. Century view -which is in fact good for your own personal conclusion - but becomes out of context within XIX Century war, in the Balkans.Periptero (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

## The Siege of Tripolis (article)

I agree with you that the article itself has not a uniform style, but a sort of antagonist positions messed up together in a text which really attempts against understanding . When I wrote one of the originals, I presented the theme more from the Greek's point of view from Kolokotronis memoirs but also Paparigopoulos, Stratiki and Kefentzi. The events of the massacre per se were not dully highlighted so when other editors included sources (mostly western oriented) I considered them welcome. But this inclusions became excessive, distorting the article itself -even by erasing notable portions describing the military operation, in favour of the attrocities commited (as if a battle had not taken part). Plus, other editors with nationalistic positions included pro-Greek texts and it became a mess. I personally think that an article for an encyclopaedia, must focuse the point and do not become off-subject because of including too many aspects. this is the reason why when I mentioned the deal made by Kolokotronis with the Albanians and granted by Plapoutas, I didn't involve in a description of the deal itself. A reader, if interested will go to further sources and not stick to WP. Else, if not interested, with what is written is enough for him. The French article although well presented, has a little bit of this problem. But this is due to the lack of other pages covering the Greek War of Independence, therefore in one article they had to deal with many subjects. I think that the English version, taking advantage of a cohesion of pages should be smaller in lenghth than the French but with correct redirections and specific military data and battle orders.Periptero (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)