User talk:Najro

Hi Najro, may I be the first to welcome you! I noticed your multiplication edit got reverted, but good on you for "being bold". Don't be offended, though, that is just the nature of Wikipedia. By the way, this is what I do with big edits: I polish them up on my User page first. Hope that helps. MathsIsFun 04:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for your info. Yes, it seems a good thing to do to work on the user page first. Najro 13:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Decimal

Hi. I would think that the new text you put at decimal would rather belong in a new article. It is way too huge, and dominates the current decimal article, and to be frank, I don't think it is that important there.

So, wonder what you think about creating a decimal superbase article, putting allthe material at decimal#superbase there, and then writing a small section at decimal about superbases while linking to decimal superbase for more info. You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, right, now I have done that. Wonder if it will be accepted this time... Najro 22:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is fine with me. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, Najro. I am --Gabriel Pradiipaka - Sanskrit & Sánscrito - www.sanskrit-sanscrito.com.ar 09:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC). If you want to include portions of our stuff in Wikipedia, make sure you follow our Terms of Use (a link to which is to be found at the bottom of almost every page of our site). [1]. Thus, as you have included a portion of a page belonging to our web site here [2], you MUST add the name of the author (Gabriel Pradiipaka) plus a clear link to the home page of our site. If you fail to do this, you risk to copyright problems. Yes, yes, I saw you put a link to the original page [3] from which you extracted the stuff... and this would meet the URL requirement, of course, but you need to add the name of the real author too: "Gabriel Pradiipaka - Sanskrit & Sánscrito"... So, please, read our Terms of Use carefully because the copyright is real and not a mere decorative note. Thanks in advance.

Sorry. This exact copy of your text was intended for temporary use here at my user page. Najro 18:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

take a look. West Brom 4ever (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Decimal superbase - Sources

I was looking at the Decimal superbase article and found that you were the one to create it (from text originally at decimal). Do you have any of your sources for that information? I'd like to do a little work on the article, but have been unable to find more information on the subject elsewhere. If you could point me in the right direction, I'd much appreciate it. Peppergrower (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There must be something written somewhere but I dont know where. This article is just a collection of different base 10 numeral systems, somebody must have collected like this before. However, there are links in the article pointing at other Wikipedia articles that have external references. Najro (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Snooker scoring

Hi, I have decided to respond to your statements about snooker on your talk page, as it is now clear to me that you neither understand the basics of the game, nor the subtleties.

First of all snooker , like all sports, goes through a process of evolution. The current rules were not arrived at from day one. Indeed various things have change in snooker in my life time (I am not that old). It is all about having a sport which is both interesting to watch and play, but also sufficiently challenging that true greats can emerge. It is not about ease of playing. If your idea had any merit, I am sure it would have emerged. As it happens your idea has absolutely no merit whatsoever. The truth is, under your scheme every single game would either have to be re-racked or would become eternal. I shall explain why later. Re-racks do occasionally occur under the current rules.

In rare circumstances, all the reds can end up at the baulk end; on the two occasions is saw this happen, the players still came all the way down the table to take the black. As in your secenario it would be just too damned easy! It is also low risk, as if the black (or in your case yellow) is not easily potable, a high quality safety shot would be very easy. As for it being better to score soemthing rather than nothing, I don't get what you mean. The point of any game is to win, and no-one is interested in how badly the loser lost!

When I say that your understanding of snooker is limited, I am not saying that to be mean; I am saying it because your comments reveal it. If you watch professional snooker, the players make all pots look easy. You appear to have assumed the degree of difficulty of potting based on the distance that the cue and/or object ball needs to travel. As I already said this is not the case; the real difficulty is gaining position and forward planning (i.e. break building).

Potting a ball, and preventing the cue ball from travelling a long distance afterwards is much more difficult than allowing it to travel far. Just watch a beginner or amateur play the game. So straight away it makes the black after a red a difficult proposition. The next point to take into account is that the yellow, green and brown are positioned in line with the top and bottom cushions (unlike the black pink and blue, which are in line with the side cushions). Therefore if a player's positional play is weak and the cue ball actually collides with one of these, it is likely that the other two will remain potable. Similarly, this fact (that these three balls are in line with the top and bottom cushions) means that the chances that a player has the perfect angle for good position on the next red are very high (see angles later). The chances of a sighted shot being possible are also much highr (a sighted shot is one where the cue ball, object ball and pocket are all in the players eyeline - thus much easier). Now, if you divide the table in two, along the centre line, where the blue sits, you will see that one half of the table has three balls in it, and the other 17 (4 and 18 respectively if you include the blue in both). What this means is that if the cue balls ends up in the baulk end, there are three balls which can be potted, with none impeding the other (or any other balls impeding the shot or the cuing). Furthermore, because of a lack of balls in that end of the table, the chances that each of these balls can be potted into all of the six pockets is very high. Potting the yellow, brown or green after a red would be an absolute cinch! If no pot were possible, or (more likely) gaining position for the next red would not be easy, the player could easily attempt a pot on any of the colours and with no difficulty at all leave the cue ball tucked tightly up behind one of the other two. Indeed this technique is already used, after a red is potted and the potting of one the higher value colours will not yield good position on therefore the next red (or the risks of giving your opponent to good a chance are too high). Already, games sometimes have to be re-spotted, if the pack remains very tight after the break off. Under your scheme this would be much more likely to happen. Escaping from such a snooker would be very difficult and would spoil the game no end.

The main reason I can tell you have little understanding of the game is that you claim the pink and blue are easy balls to pot. I guess that you assume that the blue is easy, because it is perfectly in line with the centre pockets, and two of them at that, and that there is nothing in the way and that the distance is short. These are all assumptions on your part. The blue is much more challenging for a number of reasons. Snooker is about winning the frame and not simply potting the balls. Potting the blue presents many risks and problems. Firstly if you fail whilst attempting it, and also trying to achieveposition on the next red, you risk leaving your opponent a very easy way in to the frame. The angle subtended by the pocket and cue ball at the object ball (in this case the blue) is absolutely critical. If the white blue and pocket are all in line, then the cue ball will be difficult to control; the chances of it also going in the pocket are high; actions to avoid this possibility are high risk (in positional terms). If the cue ball not on the baulk side of the centre line, then getting position on the next red is close to impossible.

As for potting the black, or the pink, there is no doubt whatsoever that these are the two most difficult colours to pot. For starters, there are up to 16 or 17 other balls which may be in between the cue and object balls; there are up to 16 or 17 balls which may be between the object ball and the pocket. Furthermore, the chances that other balls will impede cuing at this end of the table are much higher. The chances that the closeness of the cue ball to the pocket affecting the ease of a shot at this end of the table are also higher. (and these two problems are not to be sniffed at- they make a vast difference). In all likelihood the will only one pocket (if any) available for them to be potted into. The subsequent repositioning of black, pink or blue must also be taken into account, as this may also impede the next red (and bear in mind the chances that they will have to go on each others spots is high). One of the skills in snooker is breaking up the reds whilst also not leaving opportunities for your opponent. This strategic element of the game would be removed entirely under your scheme. In fact I don't see how players could use their skill to develop the reds; it would become much more a game of chance.

I think you seem to be affected by the glamour of the 147 break. It may not seem like it (probably because they get so much coverage) but they occur quite rarely. Professional players are not 'that motivated by them; their goal is always to win frame and match. In the recent world championship, whilst there were two of them, both RonnieO'Sullivan and Stephen Hendry (in their semi final match) passed up golden opportunities to score them, because they did not want to risk losing the frame. The greatest snooker players are not concerned with the ease of any shot in isolation; they could probably always pot something. They are instead concerned with winning the frame and making it difficult for their opponent to do the same. They will be thinking several shots ahead and the skill involved in building a large break and holding position on the black is almost unimaginable to the mere mortal (but it does seem to have passed you by).

Sorry to go on, but you really have demonstrated that you do not understand the very basics of snooker, let alone its hidden depths. High breaks would become impossible (which is one of the joys of watching a game - the skill in building breaks). The great thing in snooker is break building; how the players balance risk and skill. The game would just not be worth watching and no fun to play. It is perhaps a shame that none of the articles on WP gives you much idea as to the skill involved in controlling the cue ball; it is not necessarily visible to the casual observer, but the players are indeed using many techniques (not to mention a great deal of skill)) to do this. Your idea is just such nonsense, I am surprised you even aired it in public. I am not trying to be mean, just to help you understand this great game.Myredroom (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the long reply. I admit my knowledge is limited but I would say I know the basics. I certainly understand that it impossible for the "mere mortals" to acheive high breaks. In the Snooker rules article there is no statement of the reasons why the colored balls have the value they have. Without such, someone like me might imagine that it would be better to reverse the values of the colours in the first phase. No, not strictly reversing them, but having a value being in proportion to the difficulty of potting that particular colour. You say this is already the case.

Ok, the real difficulty is gaining position and forward planning. But what I mean is that, if the distance that the cue and/or object ball needs to travel is long, the shot becomes more difficult, in addition to the position gaining and forward planning you always have to do. If I interpret you correctly you later say it is easier to do the cue ball positioning if the distance it has to travel is long, and that a shorter distance makes it harder. This is the opposite of my intuition.

(By distance I mainly mean the distance between the start point and the end point of e.g. the cue ball. Suppose the distance between the start point and the desired end point is 1 foot. Suppose there is two alternatives to go there, either a 1 foot short under-shot or a 6 foot long over-shot that also bounces into a cushion. I pass on the question on which one of these are the easiest shot, the short might require some intricate screw that makes it the most difficult. But if the distance between another start point and desired end point is 7 foot, I want to believe that the 7 foot shot is more difficult than the 1 foot shot on average).

(By saying it is better to score something than nothing I mean that when you have scored something, you can try and score another red and go on with your break).

One important question of mine was: What colour is easier than black when having to do 15 reds? Your answer was the green, brown, yellow cluster. And the motivation is that the table is clear around the baulk line, and the longer distance the white has to travel makes it easier. On the two occasions when the red ended up at the baulk end, the players went for the black. That surprices me. It supports your answer.

I was expecting some objection that giving brown 7p would possibly create a more defensive game, less appealing to the crowd. You also talked about the ease of hiding white behind green, brown, yellow in a defensive shot. Well, I guess I'm not the person to predict the changed game tactics that might happen if the coloured balls changed value. Najro (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You have hit the nail on the head: none of the articles are particularly good if you ask me. They completely miss the subtlety of the game. Don't get me wrong; I think long pots are difficult, especially for the amateur, and I suspect that where the object ball has the furthest to travel, the chances of missing are probably, greater than where the cue ball does most of the traveling. But I think it isn't just a question of difficulty, but rather risk of leaving your an opponent a way in to the match. So often matches hinge on the quality of the safety play. The black is always the riskiest shot. There is always the possibility of not potting it and leaving your opponent a chance, or (as often happens) being snookered yourself! If you want to continue a break then you have to carefully break up the pack, a very high-risk/high skill operation. I guess one way to look at it as being a bit like chess; it is not just about taking your opponents pieces, is is as much about defending your own weaknesses and balancing skill and risk, as well as forward planning. In the mean time I have remembered another circumstance of interest, where the black spot was blocked (by a red) and the only available spot was the yellow. In this circumstance, both players had no problems in potting it, and didn't make particular attempts to clear the black's spot, until the balance of the score and the openess of the reds, reduced the risk of letting the other player onto the table. potting the black when it is on the yellow spot and getting the position for it, may be quite difficult, but the risks are lower. So in terms of which colour is easiest, I don't think I would necessarily say any is the easiest, but the baulk end colours are certainly the easiest to play safely, and less likely to be obscured as well as likely to cause the pack to be unfavourably split (or split to the benefit of the oponent). Hope that answers the question. I guess the trouble with snooker is that to watch a match takes full concentration and takes hours! I obviously waste too much time doing just that.

It really is fascinating game. Myredroom (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! Yes, recently there has been some watching. (My comment above about start point and end point worked in that example but not as a rule, so I strike out that entire section. By distance I now mean the distance the balls are actually rolling). Najro (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Truss bridge reference discussion

Hello. Please review the discussion going on at Talk:Truss bridge#Use of the HAER Publication on Truss Types as a Reference Document. Input from those interested in bridge articles would be appreciated. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the HAER paper is an excellent reference for historic trusses (but the discussion has stopped now anyway, and the paper was accepted). Najro (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Bank run

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Bank run, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Eubulides (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of three longest spans

Hello. Your list needs some major reshuffling. Please see List of Roman domes and List of the world's largest domes for many larger spans, including those of the Treasury of Atreus, Temple of Mercury, "Temple of Apollo", Parthenon etc. etc. Also consult List of ancient roofs#Roman roofing. The references are reliable (I created all three lists). Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of articles! I will start look at them. Thanks for the note. Regards Najro (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Decimal superbase

I have nominated Decimal superbase, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decimal superbase. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. RDBury (talk) 06:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

re Timeline of three tallest structures in the world

Hi, I see that you're no longer active, but anyway. I'm nominating this article for deletion, see the AfD discussion for details. If you were active we could talk about ways we might fix rather than than delete it, but you're not, so... Herostratus (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Timeline of three tallest structures in the world for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timeline of three tallest structures in the world is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of three tallest structures in the world 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Herostratus (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Timeline of three tallest structures in the world for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timeline of three tallest structures in the world is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of three tallest structures in the world (2nd nomination) 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. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:37, 14 October 2015 (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) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)