User talk:Efbrazil

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


Hello, Efbrazil, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or Insert-signature.png or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.


Happy editing! Jujutacular talk 02:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Cosmic Calendar[edit]

Hey, I was wondering if we could update the image you created for the Cosmic Calendar to use a 13.7 billion year age of the universe. Cheers. Stvltvs (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

--Efbrazil (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks! Fixed. Please let me know if further changes would help.


Thank you for submitting your image at featured picture candidates, I can tell you spent a good amount of time on it. If you'd like to review other nominations at "FPC", please do so. Leave a note on my talk page if you ever need any help with anything. Regards, Jujutacular talk 02:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to add to what Jujutacular said by mentioning that there is Wikipedia:Picture peer review for getting feedback on images before submission to featured picture candidates. I noticed you asked about that on your Cosmic Calendar nomination. Unfortunately, picture peer review isn't that active, but it's still usually worth a try! Thanks for your nomination, btw, it's pretty good work, and those "last 60 seconds" are especially cool. Maedin\talk 20:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

--Efbrazil (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Thanks for the info! I'll give the featured picture another shot shortly.

FPC nom[edit]

Just FYI, I fixed your new nomination of the Cosmic Calendar. Since you used the same title for the nom, it was placed over the old nomination (we keep those for archival purposes). I have placed the new nomination at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cosmic Calendar 2. Regards, Jujutacular talk 00:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Scientific Universe[edit]

File:The Scientific Universe.png is some lovely work. (It made me think of xkcd - Purity, in case you hadn't already seen that.) The File:Cosmic Calendar.png is also fantastic.

I just wanted to note my appreciation for these graphics. I look forward to anything else you might create. :) –Quiddity (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I struggled with the idea for a while. I expect when teachers are introducing science they'll start with a Google search on "science", and I wanted to help with an overview image. xkcd is good fun, hopefully posting the image for science won't result in a debate like Star Trek into Darkness...--Efbrazil (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ape may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • is a word of uncertain origin.<ref>The hypothetical Proto-Germanic form is given as ''*apōn'' (F. Kluge, ''Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Deutschen Sprache'' (2002), online version, s.v. "[http://
  • the [[Old World monkey]]s about 25 million years ago, near the Oligocene-Miocene boundary.<ref>{{cite web|url=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Letter frequency[edit]

Efbrazil - Your addition to Letter frequency is partially incorrect. I don't know how often each of the three methods you describe is used, but the third method, using existing corpora, is the source of the "table below", and likely most of the frequency tables reported in the article. In particular, Pavel Michka's site reports that dictionary frequencies are *different*, with 't' being less frequent than 'e', which is not what the bar graph below that shows. I'm going to make some edits (and clean up some other stuff in the article), but it would be good if you could take a look, and add references for the other two methods, and possibly expand on the differences in results. Argyriou (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Argyriou! I used information in this article in a project and was finding that the letter frequencies in the chart were very different from what I was seeing in Google's list of the top 100,000 words, which led to me doing a little research and writing that edit. I updated the edit to be a bit more explicit as to when each frequency type is used.--Efbrazil (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)