User talk:Eric Kvaalen
- 1 MfD nomination of User:Eric Kvaalen/timeline of the future
- 2 Discussion at a MFD
- 3 Differentiability classes
- 4 Whence Smooth function?
- 5 Ozone hole
- 6 Hello Eric
- 7 190 proof
- 8 FYI: Moving article
- 9 Turkish Airlines
- 10 Miracle of the Sun
- 11 Nomination of Magnetizer for deletion
- 12 Logarithmic derivative
MfD nomination of User:Eric Kvaalen/timeline of the future
User:Eric Kvaalen/timeline of the future, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Eric Kvaalen/timeline of the future and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Eric Kvaalen/timeline of the future during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. LuckyLouie (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Eric Kvaalen, in regards to this discussion:
|Please be calm and civil when you make comments or when you present evidence, and avoid personal attacks. Please be patient as we work toward resolution of this issue in a peaceful, respectful manner.|
I have collapsed a section that was going off-topic, if you have additional constructive comments to add to that discussion please continue in a civil manner. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 17:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
You re-added the text on Differentiability_class in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Differentiability_class&diff=597928249&oldid=536260795 , but you have not removed the text on Smooth_function, which means the same text is now in two places -- and the two texts are therefore now also diverging. Could you either re-instate the redirect on Differentiability_class or rewrite Smooth_function to just have a summary on differentiability (with a link to Differentiability_class)?
- Hi Eric, your solution to merge the two under a better name is much better than my suggested option. Thanks! Valhallasw (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Whence Smooth function?
I noticed that turned Smooth function into a redirect. This was a B-class, mid-importance article. Before I revert, I want to understand your intention. I don't see a good reason for copying content of one article to another, then creating a redirect. This destroys/buries the article history and and talk page discussion, not a good thing to do. Better would be to move the Smooth function to Smoothness or whatever, preserving the history and talk page discussion in the process. See Wikipedia:Moving a page for more details. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Mark, I couldn't move it because Smoothness already existed (and had a history). The reason for my changing the name I explained in my edit comment. The article covers more than just "smooth functions" – it talks about functions that are less smooth as well. My action was in response to the above note from user Valhallasw. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- No, not a good solution. Before you copied content over to Smoothness, it had almost no history and was a simple redirect to Smooth function. It is Smooth function that had all the development and history, not Smoothness. As explained in Wikipedia:Moving a page, if the target page exists, post it at Wikipedia:Requested moves. If the admin considering your request agrees, they will delete the target, allowing for a move. In this way, article history of the main article will be preserved, not buried in a redirect page no one will think to look at. It is best to do this the right way. Just to be clear, I have no problem with the motivation behind the move, just the method. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the depletion article is doing a better job. However you can see from the discussion I had with Yngvadottir on User_talk:Serten#Ozone_depletion_and_climate_change, that the actual science article wording is nearly incomprehensible for normal users and even experienced authors, in German terms, it failes ther "Oma-Test" (for grandma-compatibility). I have currently written some articles, e.g. Ozone_depletion_and_climate_change and Reiner Grundmann on the political cloud. The interesting thing is, that NGOs and activists believed Ozone depletion/ CFC regulation was way too complicated and not useable for campaigning. But the handful of scientists that had found the effect and in parallel pushed for regulation did a great job without needing NGO support. They used (see Sheldon Ungars research) easy to grasp metaphors like "Ozone shield" and "Ozone Hole" and were much better in gaining a political success than those that pushed for acting on global warming. That said I miss a sort of understandeable overview on the topic and I miss somewhat the rather simplified wording of the Ozone Hole article you reduced to a relink. I assume Ozone_depletion_and_climate_change could provide a readable compromise. Cheers Serten (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
My name is Ben and I'm active both here and in Hebrew Wiki. You wrote one of the best articles of Hebrew wiki which is he:ישו (יהדות), and there are some recent discussions about some translation and transcription issues in this fine article's Talk page; We would very much like you to comeback and be an active part of the process; and by the way, a talented writer like you is most needed in Hebrew wiki in general! :)
- I'll have a look later when I have the time. But I'd just like to correct the notion that I wrote that article. All I did was translate the article of the English Wikipedia! (As mention'd in my edit comment.) Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Eric, I was reading the Everclear article and noticed this statement (originating from this edit): "The highest concentration of ethanol generally available for human consumption is 190 proof, which is about 92.4% ethanol by weight." This confused me because everywhere else I have seen 190 proof being equal to exactly 95% alcohol by volume. At first I assumed this was a contradiction, but now I see that the difference may between alcohol by weight and alcohol by volume. Is that correct? I don't normally see "alcohol by weight" used as a measurement for liquor so it was a little confusing for me. Do you know of a way to clarify that in the article? -kotra (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, 190 proof is exactly 95% alcohol by volume (ABV). That means that a litre of 190 proof liquor has 950 ml of pure ethanol, that is to say, 749.78 grams. Using the density of the liquor (from fr:Calcul des titres et des volumes d'alcools for example) one can calculate the weight percent. When doing calculations of distillation one uses weight fraction or mole fraction, not ABV. So the azeotrope is normally given in weight or mole fraction. Someone had written in the article on Everclear that "water and ethanol cannot be separated by ordinary distillation when the ratio of ethanol to water is greater than approximately 95:5". Actually it's around 96%, not 95%, but in any case this is weight percent, not ABV. So the old version gave the impression that 190 proof was approximately the azeotrope (the highest possible concentration one can reach by distillation), but I pointed out that this is not the case. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining, and for making your edits to Everclear! It is much clearer now, and good job hunting down the citation. -kotra (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
FYI: Moving article
Its long time ago, but anyway, here is the message :-) Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Huldra a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Hulder. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. Christian75 (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Miracle of the Sun
Hi Eric! I've rescued (with some small editing) your valuable contribution to this article in 2013, which somebody deleted later on. However, some conceited user who doesn't respect other people's beliefs is censoring this paragraph. Maybe you'd like to give a hand there? Regards. --Savig (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of Magnetizer for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnetizer until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheLongTone (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Eric! I have noticed your contribution to apparent molar property and mathematics articles. In this regard I ask your thoughts on a rather mathematical aspect about the implications of logarithmic derivative appearing in the differential formula of excess molar quantity?
What mathematical conclusions can be inferred in regard to the dependence on pressure of both the excess volume and the activity coefficient. The excess volume being non-zero for real mixtures requires that the activity coefficient must have at least a linear dependence on pressure.--188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)